QUESTION 17
GS3
12.5 marks
Human rights activists constantly highlight the view that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is a draconian act leading to cases of human rights abuses by security forces. What sections of AFSPA are opposed by activists? Critically evaluate its requirement with reference to the view held by the Apex Court.
WRITE IN
9 min
200 words
What the examiner wants
Identify AFSPA sections activists oppose and assess its necessity in light of Supreme Court rulings.
Critically evaluateJudge the merits and the limits with evidence, and give a clear verdict.
Demand-wise check
- 1Opposed sections: Section 3 (declaring 'disturbed area'), Section 4 (use force even to cause death, arrest and search without warrant), Section 6 (prior Central sanction for prosecution)≈35 words
- 2Need: insurgency in Northeast and J&K, legal cover for forces≈35 words
- 3SC view: Naga People's Movement (1997) upheld Act with safeguards; EEVFAM (2016) - no absolute immunity, excessive force must be probed≈35 words
- 4Way forward: Jeevan Reddy repeal recommendation, phased withdrawal (Tripura 2015, Meghalaya 2018, reduced areas from 2022)≈35 words
Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.
Answer plan
Sections opposedJustificationCourt's viewReform optionsConclusion
Where marks usually go
- Not naming the sections asked for
- Ignoring the Supreme Court's view
Draw this
- Table: section → power → objection → SC safeguard
Value addition
- CaseNaga People's Movement of Human Rights v Union of India (1997) upheld AFSPA but set dos and don'ts and periodic review of disturbed-area declarations.Supreme Court, 1997
- CommitteeJustice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repealing AFSPA and adding key provisions to UAPA.MHA, 2005
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 9 minutes, then get it checked.