AFSPA Extended for Six Months in Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh from October 1, 2026

Why in News

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) for a period of six months in disturbed areas of three northeastern states — Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh — with effect from October 1, 2026, running through March 31, 2027. The extension maintains the legal framework that grants the Indian armed forces and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) special powers in areas declared "disturbed" under the Act.

Background

What is AFSPA?

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is a central legislation that grants the armed forces — primarily the Army, but also Assam Rifles and CAPFs — special powers to operate in areas declared "disturbed" under Section 3 of the Act. It was enacted in response to insurgencies in the northeastern states following Independence.

Special powers under AFSPA include:

• Power to fire upon or use force, even to the extent of causing death, against persons acting in contravention of law or carrying weapons.
• Power to arrest without warrant any person who has committed or is suspected of committing a cognisable offence.
• Power to enter and search premises without warrant.
• Section 6 (Immunity clause): No prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding can be instituted against any person in respect of anything done under AFSPA except with the prior sanction of the Central Government. This clause has been the most contentious, shielding armed forces personnel from ordinary criminal or civil accountability.

Historical Background

Current Developments

State-wise Extension Details (October 1, 2026 – March 31, 2027)

Manipur:

• AFSPA covers the entire state except the jurisdictions of 13 police stations in the Imphal Valley (Imphal East and Imphal West districts). These 13 police station areas were previously de-notified as AFSPA-free in recognition of improved law-and-order conditions.
• Context: Manipur has faced renewed ethnic tensions between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023, resulting in continued instability in hill districts — this has driven the most recent extensions.

Nagaland:

• AFSPA covers eight districts entirely and 21 police station areas in five other districts.
• Active Naga insurgent groups — primarily factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM and NSCN-K) — continue to operate in these areas.

Arunachal Pradesh:

• AFSPA covers Tirap, Changlang, and Longding districts entirely, plus select police station jurisdictions in Namsai district.
• These areas border Nagaland and Myanmar and face spillover insurgency from NSCN and other outfits.

Key Facts

• Act name: Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA).
• Who declares disturbed areas: Both the Central Government and State Governments can notify an area as "disturbed" under Section 3 of AFSPA; the October 2026 extension is a Central Government notification.
• Duration of current extension: October 1, 2026 – March 31, 2027 (six months).
• States covered: Manipur (state-wide minus 13 Imphal police stations), Nagaland (8 full districts + 21 police station areas), Arunachal Pradesh (Tirap, Changlang, Longding + parts of Namsai).
• Assam: AFSPA was fully withdrawn from Assam in 2022 and has not been re-extended since.
• Jammu & Kashmir: AFSPA in J&K is governed separately under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 — a distinct Act.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 355: Duty of the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance — the constitutional anchor for deploying the armed forces under AFSPA in disturbed areas.
• Article 246 read with Entry 1, List I (Union List), 7th Schedule: Defence of India and maintenance of armed forces is a Union subject — Parliament's legislative competence to enact AFSPA.
• Article 21 (Right to Life): The EEVFAM judgment (2016) read Article 21 to prohibit the armed forces from claiming blanket immunity for excessive force — even in AFSPA areas.
• Article 19(1)(d): Freedom of movement — restricted in disturbed areas.
• Article 22: Protections against arbitrary detention — these are subject to the Armed Forces' special arrest powers under AFSPA.

Legal Framework

• AFSPA, 1958 — Core legislation; applies to the northeastern states.
• Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act, 1990 — Separate, analogous legislation for J&K.
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) — Parallel counter-terrorism framework. The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended merging AFSPA's powers into a strengthened UAPA.
• The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976 — Provides for special courts in disturbed areas.
• Army Act, 1950 — Governs military discipline, courts-martial, and the overarching legal framework for army operations.

Key Judgments:

• Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998): Supreme Court upheld AFSPA's constitutional validity; held that the Act's powers are subject to constitutional constraints; the "disturbed area" declaration must not be arbitrary.
• EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016): Landmark ruling — immunity under AFSPA Section 6 cannot shield personnel from prosecution for disproportionate force causing civilian deaths; Central Government sanction to prosecute cannot be refused arbitrarily.

Institutional Framework

Economic and Social Dimensions

• AFSPA's long-term presence in the Northeast has impeded investment in affected districts. The 2022 partial withdrawal from Assam correlated with improved investor sentiment and increased industrial activity.
• Human rights concerns: Multiple UN Special Rapporteurs, the NHRC, and civil society organisations have documented cases of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and torture in AFSPA areas.
• Youth radicalisation: Prolonged militarisation without political resolution of ethnic and identity conflicts fuels cycles of alienation and recruitment into insurgent groups.
• Peace negotiations: Ongoing negotiations between the Government of India and NSCN-IM (Framework Agreement signed in 2015) offer the prospect of eventual AFSPA withdrawal from Nagaland if a final settlement is reached.

Challenges

1. Ethnic conflict in Manipur: The Meitei-Kuki-Zo tensions since 2023 have reversed earlier progress and led to AFSPA being maintained across most of the state, including areas previously considered for de-notification.
2. NSCN impasse: The lack of a final peace settlement with Naga insurgent groups prevents AFSPA withdrawal from Nagaland.
3. Human rights accountability: The requirement of Central Government sanction for prosecution of armed forces personnel under AFSPA Section 6 remains a structural barrier to accountability, despite the EEVFAM judgment.
4. Jeevan Reddy Committee recommendations (2005): The report recommending AFSPA's repeal has not been acted upon for over two decades, illustrating the political difficulty of reforming security legislation in conflict zones.

Government Initiatives

• Partial de-notifications (2022): Central Government withdrew AFSPA from 23 districts of Nagaland, 6 districts of Assam, and select Manipur police station areas — the most significant rollback in decades.
• Manipur peace committees / Central team: Union Government has deputed central teams and constituted peace committees to address ethnic violence.
• North East Industrial Development Scheme (NEIDS): Economic development initiative for northeastern states to reduce conditions fuelling insurgency.
• Aspirational Districts Programme: Covers several AFSPA-affected districts, targeting improvements in health, education, and livelihoods.

Way Forward

The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) explicitly recommended repealing AFSPA and absorbing its necessary security provisions into a reformed UAPA, with strict oversight mechanisms and a sunset clause. The Second ARC (2nd Administrative Reforms Commission) emphasised that security operations must be accompanied by simultaneous peace-building and economic development to be sustainable. The Supreme Court's EEVFAM (2016) judgment provides a legal framework for proportionality — requiring that armed forces use minimum necessary force and that the Central Government cannot indefinitely withhold prosecution sanction. A phased, district-by-district rollback tied to verifiable improvements in security metrics — as demonstrated successfully in Assam — offers the most viable model for eventual AFSPA withdrawal across the Northeast.

Previous UPSC Questions

• UPSC Mains GS-II 2013: "The AFSPA has been described as a colonial relic. Examine the justification and criticisms of the Act and suggest reforms."
• UPSC Prelims 2015: Under which act can an area be declared a 'disturbed area'?

Possible Mains Questions

1. "The AFSPA is a necessary evil in India's security architecture, but it has become a tool for impunity rather than order." Critically examine, with reference to constitutional provisions, judicial pronouncements, and the experience of de-notification in Assam.
2. Persistent ethnic conflicts and insurgency in India's Northeast cannot be resolved through security legislation alone. Analyse the multi-dimensional approach needed for lasting peace, with AFSPA reform as a central element.

FAQ

Q: What powers does AFSPA grant to the armed forces? A: AFSPA empowers armed forces in "disturbed areas" to: (1) open fire on persons violating laws or carrying weapons, even to the extent of causing death, if deemed necessary for maintaining public order; (2) arrest without a warrant; (3) enter and search premises without a warrant; (4) destroy any arms dumps, fortified positions, or structures used as training camps. Critically, Section 6 requires Central Government sanction before prosecution of any personnel for acts done under AFSPA — a provision that critics call a blanket immunity clause.

Q: Which states currently have AFSPA as of October 2026? A: As of October 2026, AFSPA is in force in: Manipur (state-wide except 13 Imphal Valley police station jurisdictions), Nagaland (8 full districts + 21 police station areas), and Arunachal Pradesh (Tirap, Changlang, Longding + parts of Namsai). AFSPA was fully withdrawn from Assam in 2022. Jammu & Kashmir has a separate analogous Act — the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act, 1990.

Q: What did the EEVFAM judgment say about AFSPA? A: In Extra Judicial Execution Victims Families Association v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that the immunity under Section 6 of AFSPA does not provide blanket protection. Armed forces personnel can be prosecuted for excessive and disproportionate force causing civilian deaths, and the Central Government cannot arbitrarily refuse sanction for prosecution. The court ordered a CBI-SIT investigation into alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur.

Further Reading

• AFSPA text: indiacode.nic.in
• MHA notification: mha.gov.in
• Jeevan Reddy Committee Report summary: Available via Parliament Library
• EEVFAM judgment: Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 129 of 2012