Critically analyse the constitutional validity and ethical concerns surrounding AFSPA, in light of recent Supreme Court rulings and the government's 2027 withdrawal roadmap.

Q. Critically analyse the constitutional validity and ethical concerns surrounding AFSPA, in light of recent Supreme Court rulings and the government's 2027 withdrawal roadmap. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 empowers armed forces in notified "disturbed areas" to arrest without warrant, search premises and even use lethal force [1]. With the Home Minister announcing withdrawal from almost the entire Northeast by 2027, the Act's legality is settled but its ethical legitimacy remains contested.

The case for constitutional validity - Entry 2A, Union List and Article 355 (Centre's duty to protect States against internal disturbance) supply the legislative and constitutional basis [1]. - In Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997), a five-judge bench upheld AFSPA unanimously, holding it was not a colourable exercise of power [2]. - The Court read in safeguards: a "disturbed area" declaration must be time-bound and reviewed every six months, and forces must follow binding do's-and-don'ts [2]. - Strategically, the Northeast abuts five countries, making insurgency a security — not merely law-and-order — question [1].

Ethical and accountability concerns - Section 6 bars prosecution without prior Central sanction, creating a structural impunity gap [1]. - In EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016), the Court held that excessive force is impermissible even in disturbed areas and against militants, and ordered a CBI probe into alleged Manipur encounter killings [3] — evidence that judicial validity has not prevented abuse. - Sustained civil resistance, most visibly Irom Sharmila's long fast, reflects an erosion of public trust that legal validity alone cannot repair. - The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repeal; non-implementation left reform to executive discretion.

Verdict and way forward The Act is constitutionally valid but ethically over-broad — validity was upheld only alongside safeguards that practice has weakened. The government's calibrated rollback, from district-wise reduction in Assam and police-station-wise withdrawal in Manipur [4] to near-complete exit by 2027, is the correct direction. To be durable, it must be paired with strengthened State police capacity, closure of pending encounter inquiries and victim redressal — converting a security-driven retreat into a rights-affirming peace consistent with Article 21.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 — Ministry of Home Affairs — powers under Sections 3, 4 and 6; Entry 2A/Article 355 basis; disturbed-area framework 2. Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (27 November 1997) — constitutional validity upheld; six-monthly review and operational safeguards 3. Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016) — excessive force impermissible in disturbed areas; CBI probe into Manipur encounter deaths 4. PIB: Government further reduces disturbed areas under AFSPA in Nagaland, Assam and Manipur (April 2023) — district-wise and police-station-wise phased reduction