Q4.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.

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.

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.

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.