CURRENT AFFAIRS | 02 OCTOBER 2026
Centre Extends AFSPA in Parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal for Six Months
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) across notified “disturbed areas” of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh for a further six months with effect from 1 October 2026 — that is, up to 31 March 2027 — after reviewing the law-and-order situation. The periodic extension is an occasion to revisit the Act’s statutory scheme and the constitutional debate around it.
- Extended for six months, from 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027
- Manipur: entire state ‘disturbed’ under Section 3, except areas under 13 police stations in five valley districts
- Nagaland: retained in nine districts plus specified police-station areas in five more
- Arunachal Pradesh: retained in specified areas bordering Assam and Myanmar
- Decision taken by the MHA after review of the ground situation
The Statutory Scheme
AFSPA grants special powers to the armed forces in areas declared “disturbed.” Section 3 confers the power to make that declaration. Section 4 sets out the operational powers — the use of force (even to the extent of causing death) against those breaking prohibitory orders or carrying weapons, arrest without warrant, and search without warrant. Section 6 provides that no prosecution or legal proceeding may be instituted against personnel acting under the Act without the prior sanction of the Central Government.
The Rollback Trend
The current extension sits against a longer pattern of gradual withdrawal. In recent years AFSPA has been fully lifted from Tripura and Meghalaya and progressively reduced in Assam, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, reflecting an effort to confine the Act to the areas where it is considered necessary.
Article 355 casts a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance. It is frequently cited as the constitutional foundation for central measures to maintain order, including the operation of AFSPA in disturbed areas.
In Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v Union of India (1998), a Constitution Bench upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA but laid down binding ‘Dos and Don’ts’ for the forces. In Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court held that the armed forces cannot claim blanket immunity and that allegations of fake encounters in Manipur must be investigated — there is ‘no absolute immunity.’
The Reform Debate
Several official bodies have recommended review or repeal. The Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended that AFSPA be repealed; the Second Administrative Reforms Commission and the Santosh Hegde Committee also raised concerns about its operation. The result is a continuing debate that balances operational necessity against accountability and human rights.
How the Extension Was Decided
The present extension was ordered by the Ministry of Home Affairs after a review of the ground situation, and its geography is deliberately granular rather than blanket. In Manipur the entire state is notified as ‘disturbed’ under Section 3, but areas under thirteen police stations across five valley districts are expressly kept outside the Act. In Nagaland the Act is retained in nine named districts and in specified police-station areas of five others, and in Arunachal Pradesh it continues in pockets bordering Assam and Myanmar. This police-station-level tailoring reflects the trend of confining AFSPA to where it is judged necessary rather than applying it uniformly.
The Accountability Question
The two leading cases together define the Act’s constitutional boundaries. Naga People’s Movement (1998) settled that AFSPA is valid, but conditioned its exercise on the binding ‘Dos and Don’ts.’ EEVFAM (2016) then closed the door on impunity, holding that the forces cannot shelter behind blanket immunity and that credible allegations of extra-judicial killing must be investigated. Read with Section 6’s sanction requirement, the position is that the Act protects bona fide action but does not immunise unlawful conduct — the core of the accountability debate that keeps AFSPA in the news at each renewal.
AFSPA is a high-yield topic. Lock in the trio of sections — Section 3 (declare disturbed), Section 4 (powers of force, arrest and search), Section 6 (sanction for prosecution) — along with Article 355 and the two leading cases, Naga People’s Movement (1998) and EEVFAM (2016). The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) is the standard ‘repeal’ reference.
Fix the sections with “3 declares, 4 empowers, 6 shields.” For the cases, pair “1998 upholds (with Dos & Don’ts)” against “2016 EEVFAM — no absolute immunity.”
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
