Human rights activists oppose certain sections of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) that are seen as contributing to human rights abuses by security forces. The following sections are of particular concern:

1. Section 4(a): This section grants special powers to armed forces personnel, including the power to arrest without a warrant and to use force, even to the extent of causing death, in certain situations. Activists argue that this provision gives excessive power to security forces and can lead to abuse, as it allows them to act with impunity.

2. Section 4(c): This section grants immunity from prosecution to security forces personnel, unless prior approval is obtained from the central government. Critics argue that this provision effectively shields security forces from accountability, making it difficult to hold them responsible for human rights violations.

3. Section 6: This section protects armed forces personnel from legal proceedings, such as prosecution or lawsuits, unless specific sanction is obtained from the central government. Activists argue that this provision creates a culture of impunity and undermines the rule of law, as it hampers the ability to seek justice for human rights violations.

The requirement for AFSPA and its sections is a matter of controversy, with the view held by the Apex Court also being critical. The Supreme Court of India has expressed concerns about the potential for human rights abuses under AFSPA and has stressed the need for accountability and transparency.

In several cases, the court has urged the government to review AFSPA and suggested that the immunity provisions be reconsidered. The court has emphasized that security forces must operate within the framework of national and international human rights norms and that any excessive use of force must be investigated and prosecuted.

Critics argue that AFSPA, in its current form, is not consistent with these principles and that it provides security forces with a legal framework that facilitates human rights abuses. They advocate for a more balanced and accountable approach that respects both national security concerns and the rights of individuals.

In conclusion, the sections of AFSPA opposed by human rights activists are those that grant excessive powers, provide immunity, and restrict legal proceedings against security forces. The requirement for AFSPA and its sections is a matter of controversy, with the Apex Court recognizing the need for accountability and transparency in its implementation.

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958: A Controversial Law

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is a controversial piece of legislation that grants sweeping powers to the armed forces in certain "disturbed areas" of India. It has been criticized by human rights activists for its potential to lead to human rights abuses, particularly in the northeastern states and Jammu & Kashmir.

Here are some sections of AFSPA that are opposed by activists:

1. Section 4: This section gives armed forces the power to shoot at sight anyone suspected of acting against the law. This provision has been widely condemned as it allows for extrajudicial killings and undermines the principle of due process.

2. Section 6: This section grants immunity from prosecution to armed forces personnel for actions taken under AFSPA. This provision has been criticized for creating an environment of impunity and discouraging accountability for human rights violations.

3. Section 7: This section empowers the armed forces to enter and search any premises without a warrant. This provision has been criticized for infringing on the right to privacy and allowing for arbitrary searches and seizures.

4. Section 8: This section gives the armed forces the power to arrest any person without a warrant. This provision has been criticized for allowing for arbitrary detentions and infringing on the right to liberty.

The Apex Court's View:

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly acknowledged the potential for abuse under AFSPA. In various judgments, the court has emphasized the need for strict adherence to human rights principles and called for transparency and accountability from the armed forces.

However, the court has also recognized the security concerns in the areas where AFSPA is implemented and has upheld the validity of the Act. In 2016, the court upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, stating that it was not inherently unconstitutional but needed to be implemented with due regard to human rights.

Critical Evaluation:

The debate around AFSPA revolves around the balance between national security and human rights. While the Act grants the armed forces necessary powers to deal with security challenges, its broad and unchecked powers create a fertile ground for abuses.

Arguments in favor of repealing AFSPA:

• Human Rights Violations: The act has been linked to numerous instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, and disappearances.
• Lack of Accountability: The immunity provisions hinder justice and accountability for human rights abuses.
• Erosion of Trust: The draconian nature of the act has eroded trust between the armed forces and the local population.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: AFSPA undermines fundamental rights such as freedom of movement, right to privacy, and right to life.

Arguments against repealing AFSPA:

• Security Concerns: The act is essential to maintaining security in disturbed areas and combating insurgency.
• Difficulty in Proving Abuse: It is challenging to prove human rights abuses in conflict zones, and the act provides a framework for dealing with complex situations.
• Alternative Measures: Repealing the Act may not solve the underlying security issues, and alternative measures may not be effective.

Conclusion:

The debate surrounding AFSPA is complex and multifaceted. While it is crucial to address the legitimate security concerns, it is equally important to protect human rights and ensure accountability. The Supreme Court's view underscores the need for a careful balance between these competing interests. Repealing AFSPA outright may not be the solution, but comprehensive reforms to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to human rights are essential to address the concerns raised by activists and ensure justice for all.

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is a controversial law in India that grants special powers to the armed forces to maintain public order in disturbed areas. Human rights activists have long criticized the act, arguing that it leads to human rights abuses by security forces. The sections of AFSPA that are most opposed by activists are:

1. Section 4: This section grants the armed forces the power to shoot to kill, destroy property, and arrest without warrant anyone suspected of violating any law or order. Activists argue that this provision is too broad and has led to numerous cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

2. Section 5: This section provides that any person arrested under the act cannot be tried in a civil court, and can only be tried by a military court or a court-martial. Activists argue that this provision violates the right to a fair trial and has led to impunity for security forces.

3. Section 6: This section grants immunity to the armed forces from prosecution for any actions taken under the act, unless the central government sanctions such prosecution. Activists argue that this provision has led to a culture of impunity, as the government rarely grants such sanctions.

The Supreme Court of India has addressed the concerns around AFSPA in various judgments. In the landmark case of Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA but also laid down guidelines to prevent its misuse. The court held that the act must be read in consonance with the Constitution and international human rights law, and that the powers granted under the act must be exercised in a manner that respects human rights.

However, the court also recognized the need for a law like AFSPA in disturbed areas, citing the threat of insurgency and terrorism. The court emphasized that the act was meant to be an extraordinary measure to be used in exceptional circumstances, and that the government must take necessary steps to prevent its misuse.

In subsequent judgments, such as Extra Judicial Execution Victims Families Association v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court has reiterated its concerns about the misuse of AFSPA and emphasized the need for accountability and transparency. The court has also directed the government to take steps to ensure that allegations of human rights abuses are investigated and prosecuted.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, it has also acknowledged the concerns around its misuse and emphasized the need for accountability and transparency. Human rights activists continue to oppose the act, arguing that its provisions are too broad and have led to widespread human rights abuses. Ultimately, the debate around AFSPA highlights the delicate balance between national security and human rights, and the need for a nuanced approach that addresses both concerns.