For Complete Repeal: The Hindu Editorial on AFSPA

which is a nod to the outspoken demand to repeal the apparently unpopular Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) from several states of the Northeast, especially after 13 civilians killed in Nagaland’s Mon district In December last year, the Union Home Ministry Decided to significantly reduce the number of “disturbed areas” under the Act in three states. This order is in force for six months from April 1. In Nagaland, while AFSPA was removed from the jurisdiction of 15 police stations in seven districts, it remains in 57 police stations in 13 districts. The relaxation has been highest in Assam, where it has been completely removed from 23 districts and partially from one, thus completely limiting its operations to only nine districts. On the other hand, in Manipur, only 15 police station areas in six districts have been excluded from disturbed area notification, and the Act is still in force in 82 police stations in 16 districts, including several hill districts, regardless of whether they are Adjacent to it or not. international border. As things stand, the government’s decision to relax the application of the Act in specific areas stems from a reduction in violence and administrative reasons, and not as a response to the burning question of whether the Act is meant for security functions in these states. Necessary. , who have experienced rebellions of varying degrees in the past.

While this piecemeal gesture will be especially welcomed by the residents of these areas, the popular demand from all the three states to repeal the Act remains unfulfilled. Despite vigorous opposition from security forces to uphold the Act, a five-member committee led by retired Supreme Court Justice BP Jeevan Reddy in 2005, including human rights organisations, sections of civil society and committees, has consistently called for its repeal. The committee had specifically suggested that the Act created an impression that people from northeastern states were being targeted for hostile behavior and instead the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act be suitably amended to deal with terrorism. can go. Supreme Court-appointed Justice N. The Santosh Hegde Committee in 2013, which investigated “encounter” killings in Manipur, suggested that the Act should be properly reviewed every six months to see whether its implementation was necessary, but within its scope. Extension Acts have proceeded as regular matters. In 2016, the Supreme Court had also ruled that the armed forces could not be exempted from scrutiny for excesses committed in the discharge of their duties even in “disturbed areas”, actually limiting the conditions in which Defense applies. This again begs the question – why should the Act remain in statute?