Human right activists constantly highlight the fact that the Armed forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is a draconian act leading to cases of human right abuses by security forces. What sections of AFSPA are opposed by the activists. Critically evaluate the requirement with reference to the view held by Apex Court.
Introduction
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) grants special powers to armed forces in 'disturbed areas' to maintain public order. It is highly controversial, constantly highlighted by human rights activists for alleged abuses.
Body
Sections Opposed by Activists
- Section 4: Power to shoot to kill, destroy structures.
- Section 5: Power to arrest without warrant.
- Section 6: Immunity from prosecution.
Requirement and Human Rights Concerns
Proponents view AFSPA as essential for counter-insurgency, national security, and law and order in challenging regions. Conversely, activists cite extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, torture, and lack of accountability, causing alienation among local populations.
Apex Court's Stance
The Supreme Court, in cases like Naga People's Movement, upheld AFSPA's constitutional validity but mandated strict safeguards. It emphasized minimum force, prompt inquiry into alleged abuses, and periodic review of 'disturbed area' status.
Conclusion
A critical evaluation reveals a constant tension between security imperatives and human rights. A balanced approach necessitates stricter implementation of safeguards, accountability for abuses, and a phased withdrawal or amendment to foster trust.
166 words · target ~150
The directive requires a balanced assessment of the pros and cons of AFSPA, specifically its necessity versus human rights concerns, with a strong emphasis on the Supreme Court's stance.
Suggested structure
Introduction to AFSPA and its controversial nature
Specific sections of AFSPA opposed by human rights activists
Arguments for the requirement/necessity of AFSPA
Arguments against AFSPA highlighting human rights abuses
Apex Court's views and guidelines on AFSPA
Conclusion and way forward (e.g., reforms, review)
Key points
AFSPA grants special powers to armed forces in 'disturbed areas' for maintaining public order.
Activists primarily oppose Sections 4 (power to shoot to kill, destroy structures), 5 (power to arrest without warrant), and 6 (immunity from prosecution).
Requirement arguments: Essential for counter-insurgency operations, protecting national security, and maintaining law and order in challenging regions.
Human rights concerns: Allegations of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, torture, rape, lack of accountability, and alienation of local populations.
Apex Court (e.g., Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India) upheld constitutional validity but mandated strict safeguards, minimum force, prompt inquiry, and periodic review of 'disturbed area' status.
Conclusion: Need for a balance between security imperatives and human rights protection, often suggesting repeal, amendment, or stricter implementation of safeguards.
Common mistakes
Not mentioning specific sections of AFSPA opposed by activists.
Failing to provide a balanced 'critical evaluation' by only presenting one side of the argument.
Omitting or providing insufficient detail on the Apex Court's specific views, judgments, or guidelines.
Lack of a clear, nuanced conclusion or suggestions for reform/way forward.
Difficulty: Medium — The question requires specific knowledge of AFSPA sections, a balanced critical evaluation, and crucially, recall of Apex Court judgments and guidelines related to the Act, which goes beyond general awareness.