·The Hindu·15 marks·250–350 words

Replacing blanket AFSPA coverage with police-station-level notification marks a calibrated approach. Evaluate.

New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →
In this answer
  1. Merits: why it is calibrated
  2. Limitations: why it falls short

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 lets the armed forces arrest without a warrant, search premises and use force in areas notified as "disturbed" [1]. Since 2022, the Centre has moved away from notifying whole States. It now notifies districts and police-station areas instead [2][3]. The October 2026 extension keeps this approach [1]. The shift is real calibration, but it is incomplete.

Merits: why it is calibrated

  • Proportionality: In April 2022, 15 police stations in 7 Nagaland districts and 15 police stations in 6 Manipur districts were taken out of the notification [3]. Coverage now follows the security situation.
  • Responsiveness: After the 3 May 2023 conflict, Manipur was notified again. The 13 police stations in 5 Valley districts were left out [1].
  • Border focus: In Arunachal, only Tirap, Changlang, Longding and three Namsai police stations are covered [1]. These are the insurgency-affected border areas.
  • Building normalcy: AFSPA has been lifted from most of the North-East since 2014 [2]. This tells people that the region is returning to normal.

Limitations: why it falls short

  • Rollback is not one-way: Nagaland went from 8 districts [2] to 9 districts [1]. Manipur's earlier withdrawals were reversed [1].
  • Unequal lines: Manipur's map follows the hill–Valley divide of the conflict itself [1]. Each side can read it as the State taking a side, and nearby villages live under different rules on arrest and use of force.
  • Opaque renewals: Each six-monthly order lists areas but gives no public reasons, such as violence figures [1]. Outsiders cannot check whether the "disturbed" label is still justified.
  • Core powers unchanged: Calibration changes where the Act applies, not how. Under Section 6, no soldier can be prosecuted without prior Central sanction [4]. The accountability gap remains.
  • Federal concern: The MHA notifies the areas, which limits the say of the States [1].

Evaluation: Police-station-level notification is a genuine improvement over blanket coverage. It narrows the Act's reach and follows the proportionality test that Article 21 requires. But calibrating where the Act applies is not the same as reforming how it works.

Way forward: The MHA should publish reasons for each area at every renewal, and the Centre should decide sanction requests within a fixed time. States should also build up their police forces so each withdrawal lasts. Together, these steps would turn geographic calibration into accountable security governance, in line with SDG 16.

Sources

  1. 1"What are the provisions of AFSPA?", Vijaita Singh, The Hindu (30 Sept 2026) – news explainerpowers; October 2026 extension details for Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal; 3 May 2023 conflict; six-month cycle; MHA as notifying authority
  2. 2PIB: Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 in Northeastern Statesshift to area-wise notification; withdrawal from most of the North-East since 2014; Nagaland's earlier 8-district coverage
  3. 3PIB: Government of India reduces disturbed areas under AFSPA in Nagaland, Assam and Manipur after decades (2022)April 2022 removal of 15 police stations in 7 Nagaland districts and 15 police stations in 6 Manipur districts
  4. 4India Code: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958Section 6, prior Central sanction for prosecution

More from this note