Discuss the constitutional tension between AFSPA's provisions and the fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22. Suggest safeguards.

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 lets soldiers use force, arrest without warrant and search premises in areas notified as "disturbed" [1][3]. Its renewal from 1 October 2026 over most of Manipur and parts of Nagaland and Arunachal [3] revives a core question: can such powers coexist with the liberty guarantees of Articles 21 and 22?

Tension with Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty)

• Lethal force: Sec. 4(a) allows firing "even to the causing of death" at persons violating prohibitory orders [1]. This sets a low threshold against the "just, fair and reasonable" procedure that Article 21 demands.
• Warrantless search of homes [1] intrudes on privacy and dignity.
• Accountability gap: Sec. 6 bars prosecution without prior Central sanction [1]. The same government that deploys the troops decides whether they face trial.
• Judicial finding: In EEVFAM (2016), the Supreme Court examined 1,528 alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur. It held that there is no absolute immunity for excessive force [5].

Tension with Article 22 (Arrest and Detention)

• Arrest on "reasonable suspicion" without warrant [1] weakens the Article 22(1) right to know the grounds of arrest and to consult a lawyer.
• Custody delay: Sec. 5 requires handover to police only "with the least possible delay" [1]. This vague standard fits poorly with the 24-hour magistrate rule of Article 22(2).

The State's Justification

• Upheld in Naga People's Movement (1997) as within Parliament's competence, subject to six-monthly review [4].
• Calibrated use: AFSPA has been lifted from most of the North-East since 2014, including 19 police-station areas in Manipur before May 2023 [2]. It was restored after the ethnic conflict [3].

Safeguards

• Legislative: Act on the Second ARC (5th Report) recommendation to repeal AFSPA and move the needed powers into UAPA [6].
• Reasoned renewals: Publish district-wise reasons with every extension, so that the 1997 review [4] can be checked by the public.
• Time-bound sanction: The Centre should decide prosecution requests within a fixed period, with written reasons open to judicial review.
• Independent inquiry into every alleged death, as EEVFAM directed [5]. Enforce the Army's "Dos and Don'ts" that were made binding in 1997 [4].
• Exit capacity: Strengthen State police so that AFSPA can be withdrawn when the police can hold an area [2].

AFSPA thus meets a real security need, but its immunity and vague procedures strain Articles 21 and 22. Clearer limits on these powers, transparent review and prompt accountability can keep what is necessary and remove the excess. Security and liberty can then support each other, as the Constitution intends.