GS Question

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.