AFSPA extended in parts of Arunachal, Manipur, Nagaland

1. At a Glance

• AFSPA, 1958 lets the Centre declare a "disturbed area" under Section 3. It extends to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura [2].
• The Act gives the Army and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) in disturbed areas powers to kill anyone acting in contravention of law, to arrest and search premises without a warrant, and protection from prosecution and legal proceedings [1].
• The Home Ministry renews the declarations every six months. The latest renewal covers parts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland [1].
• Aspirants should care because the topic ties together internal security, centre-state relations, civil liberties and the Northeast.

2. Why in the News

• On Friday, 25 Sept 2026, the Union Home Ministry extended AFSPA in parts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland for another six months [1].
• Manipur: the whole State stays covered except the jurisdiction of 13 police stations in five valley districts [1].
• Nagaland: the extension covers nine districts and 21 police stations in five other districts [1].
• Arunachal Pradesh: three districts and three police stations in another district bordering Assam stay "disturbed area" [1].
• Manipur context: the State has seen ethnic violence since 3 May 2023. President's Rule was imposed on 13 Feb 2025 and revoked on 4 Feb 2026 [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1958: the Act was enacted, and Section 3 provides for the "disturbed area" declaration [1][2].
• 2004: the Act's provisions were withdrawn from the Imphal municipality area [1].
• 1 Apr 2022 – 1 Apr 2023: the Manipur government withdrew AFSPA from all valley police stations, citing an improved security situation and a "large sense of security among general public" [1].
• 14 Nov 2024: after the 2023 ethnic violence, the Act was reimposed in the limits of six police stations in five districts, mostly in the valley. This was out of 19 police stations in seven districts [1].
• Feb 2021: the entire State of Assam was declared a Disturbed Area under Section 3, per an Assam government order hosted on the MHA site [3].
• Arunachal Pradesh: the Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts have been notified as disturbed areas under Section 3 in Gazette notifications [4].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The "protection from prosecution" clause is the central rights controversy, because it limits ordinary criminal accountability [1].
• The Act covers the use of force, arrest and search, with a notification-based trigger under Section 3 [1][2].
• From general knowledge, not retrieved for this note: the Supreme Court upheld the Act's validity in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997). Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016) is also relevant.

Administrative / Federal

• The Centre notifies the declarations. States can influence the geography through their law-and-order assessments. Manipur withdrew AFSPA from valley police stations in 2022–23, then the Centre reimposed it in some of them in Nov 2024 [1].
• Notifications are drawn at district and police-station level. This lets the Centre make finer, area-specific calibrations than a blanket statewide declaration [1].

Geopolitical / Strategic

• The Arunachal areas covered are Assam-bordering districts and police stations. This links the notifications to border-area security and insurgency spillover [1].

Governance / Ethical

• The withdrawal-and-reimposition cycle in Manipur shows that the declaration follows the security situation rather than being permanent [1].
• The six-month renewals raise a question of accountability. Periodic review is the main procedural check.

Historical

• Withdrawal from Imphal municipality (2004) and from valley stations (2022–23) form a de-escalation trajectory. The 2023 violence then reversed part of it [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 4 Feb 2026: President's Rule in Manipur revoked [1].
• 13 Feb 2025: President's Rule imposed in Manipur [1].
• 14 Nov 2024: AFSPA reimposed in six Manipur police stations across five districts [1].
• 25 Sept 2026: six-month extension in Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh [1].

7. Prelims Hooks (high-density factual bullets)

• AFSPA was enacted in 1958 [1].
• The "disturbed area" declaration is made under Section 3 of the Act [2].
• The Act's extent covers 7 Northeastern States: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura [2].
• The Union Home Ministry issues the extension notifications [1].
• Extensions are for six months at a time [1].
• Manipur's ethnic violence began on 3 May 2023 [1].
• President's Rule in Manipur ran from 13 Feb 2025 to 4 Feb 2026 [1].
• AFSPA was withdrawn from the Imphal municipality area in 2004 [1].
• In Manipur, 13 police stations in five valley districts are excluded from the latest extension [1].
• In Nagaland, the latest extension covers 9 districts and 21 police stations in five other districts [1].
• In Arunachal Pradesh, the latest extension covers three districts and three police stations in a district bordering Assam [1].
• Tirap, Changlang and Longding (Arunachal Pradesh) have been notified as disturbed areas under Section 3 [4].
• The whole of Assam was declared a Disturbed Area in Feb 2021 [3].

8. Why the Six-Month Renewal Is Not a Real Review

• Section 3 does not tell the government what test to apply
• The Act says a "disturbed area" may be declared by notification when the area is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that armed forces are needed to aid the civil power [2].
• It does not fix any measurable standard — no number of killings, no level of violence, no time limit after which the declaration must lapse on its own.

• So the same officials who want the powers also judge whether the powers are still needed. There is no outside check built into the law.

• Nobody outside the Home Ministry sees the reasoning

• The renewal comes as a notification from the Union Home Ministry every six months [1].
• Parliament does not vote on it. Unlike a proclamation of President's Rule, which needs Parliament's approval, an AFSPA renewal needs nobody's approval.

• The security review behind the renewal is not published. An aspirant, a judge or an MLA cannot check whether the facts changed.

• This is why "temporary" law became permanent law

• Arunachal Pradesh's Tirap, Changlang and Longding stayed notified as disturbed areas for decades before any part of the State saw a rollback in April 2019 — about 32 years [7].
• A power meant for an emergency has been renewed so many times that renewal is now the normal state of affairs, not the exception.

9. The Immunity Clause Is Narrower Than Courts Say — and Wider Than Practice Shows

• What the law actually gives
• Section 6 says no prosecution or legal case can be started against a person for anything done under the Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government [2].

• So the bar is not "you can never be tried". The bar is "the Centre must first say yes".

• The Supreme Court added a limit that is often forgotten

• The protection covers only acts done in exercise of the powers given by the Act. There must be a reasonable link between what the soldier did and the duty he was performing [6].

• Plain meaning: shooting during a lawful search operation may be covered. A private crime in a disturbed area is not.

• The gap is in who decides, not in what the law says

• The same Central Government that deploys the force also decides whether that force can be prosecuted. The decision-maker and the employer are the same [2].
• The Justice Verma Committee (2013) recommended that this sanction requirement be removed completely where a sexual offence is alleged. The government did not accept it [6].
• Result: on paper, immunity is conditional. In practice, if sanction is refused, the condition is never tested in open court, and the victim's family never gets a trial.

10. A Committee Told the Government to Repeal This in 2005 — Nothing Happened

• The Jeevan Reddy Committee
• The Centre set up a five-member committee under Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy in November 2004, after the protests that followed the death of Thangjam Manorama in Manipur. It reported in 2005 [5].

• It recommended that AFSPA be repealed. It called the Act a "draconian" law made especially for the Northeast [5].

• But it did not recommend disarming the forces

• The committee said the useful parts should be moved into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which applies to the whole country [5].

• Its reasoning: if the same special powers exist under an all-India law, people of the Northeast stop feeling they are singled out. That feeling of discrimination and being cut off from the rest of India is itself a security problem [5].

• Why this matters for the 2026 renewal

• The government kept the report confidential and left the decision pending; it reached the public only after a leak to the media [5].
• Twenty-one years later, the Centre is still renewing the Act every six months [1]. A Mains answer can use this as a clean example of a policy choice made by not choosing.

11. The Honest Case for Keeping It — and Where That Case Breaks

• The argument for AFSPA is a real one, not a fake one
• Soldiers are not police. They have no power of arrest or search under ordinary criminal law. Without a statute, a soldier who detains a suspect is himself acting illegally.
• AFSPA supplies that legal cover — arrest without warrant, search without warrant, use of force [1]. Withdraw it without a replacement and the Army is legally paralysed while still being ordered into the field.

• The Manipur record supports one half of this. The State removed AFSPA from valley police stations in 2022–23 citing improved security [1]. After violence from 3 May 2023, the Centre put it back in six police stations in November 2024 [1]. Security did get worse after withdrawal.

• Where the argument fails

• It explains why some special powers are needed. It does not explain why those powers must come with sanction-gated immunity under Section 6 [2].
• The Jeevan Reddy Committee answered exactly this point: keep the powers, move them to UAPA, drop the separate law for the Northeast [5].
• It also does not explain permanence. If the Act works, violence should fall and the notified area should shrink permanently. In Arunachal, three districts and three police stations bordering Assam are still notified in 2026 [1], decades after the first declaration [7].

12. How an Aspirant Should Read the Shrinking Map

• The area covered is falling, and that is the strongest defence the Centre has
• Imphal municipality: out in 2004 [1]. All Manipur valley police stations: out 2022–23 [1]. Three Arunachal districts: partly rolled back in 2019 after 32 years [7]. Today 13 valley police stations in five Manipur districts stay excluded [1].

• So the trend line is real. Notifications are now drawn police-station by police-station, not State by State [1].

• But shrinking area is not the same as accountability

• A person living inside a notified police station area today has exactly the same legal position as in 1958. Section 6 has never been amended [2].

• Fewer people under the Act is progress in scale. It is not progress in rights.

• The line to use in an answer

• Judge AFSPA on two separate scales — how much territory it covers, and what happens to a victim inside that territory.
• India has moved on the first. It has not moved on the second. A private member's Armed Forces (Special Powers) Repeal Bill has been introduced in the Rajya Sabha, but a private member's Bill almost never becomes law [8].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Latest six-month extension covers 3 districts + 3 police stations in Arunachal, 9 districts + 21 police stations in Nagaland, and all of Manipur except 13 police stations in 5 valley districts (25 Sept 2026) [1]
• Report/Committee: Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (set up Nov 2004, reported 2005) — repeal AFSPA, shift its useful powers into UAPA, 1967 [5]
• Report/Committee: Justice Verma Committee (2013) — remove the sanction requirement where a sexual offence is alleged; not accepted by the government [6]
• Law/Case: Section 3 (disturbed-area declaration) and Section 6 (no prosecution without previous sanction of the Central Government), AFSPA 1958 [2]; Supreme Court's "reasonable nexus" test — immunity covers only acts genuinely done in exercise of the Act's powers [6]
• Comparison: Jeevan Reddy's own comparison — an all-India law (UAPA) carrying the same powers removes the feeling of discrimination that a Northeast-only Act creates [5]
• Scheme/Precedent: Arunachal Pradesh's partial withdrawal in April 2019, after 32 years of notification, as proof that rollback is administratively possible [7]
• Legislative: Armed Forces (Special Powers) Repeal Bill, introduced as a private member's Bill in the Rajya Sabha [8]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-III: Internal Security, covering the role of security forces and insurgency in border areas.
• GS-II: Centre-state relations, and government policies affecting vulnerable sections and human rights.
• Plausible questions:
• "AFSPA's continued renewal reflects failure of political resolution rather than security necessity." Discuss.
• Examine the constitutional and human-rights concerns of AFSPA and evaluate the case for calibrated, area-specific withdrawal.
• Analyse the interplay between the Centre and the State in declaring 'disturbed areas', with reference to Manipur.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Manipur ethnic conflict (2023–): the direct driver of the reimposition.
• Article 355 and 356 / President's Rule: Manipur's 2025–26 spell.
• Disturbed Areas Acts of States: compare them with the Central AFSPA.
• Naga peace process: the political context for Nagaland.
• Police reforms and CAPF deployment: the civil-military balance.
• Sixth Schedule and Northeast autonomy: governance context.
• Border management in the Northeast: the Assam–Arunachal border areas.
• Human rights jurisprudence on encounters: the Supreme Court's stance on force and accountability.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Centre vs State: the notification is issued by the Union Home Ministry in this case [1]. Do not confuse it with state-level Disturbed Areas Acts.
• Manipur coverage: it is the whole State except 13 police stations, not just the valley or the hills [1].
• Manipur dates: 14 Nov 2024 (AFSPA reimposition), 13 Feb 2025 (President's Rule) and 4 Feb 2026 (revocation) are different events [1].
• Sections: Section 3 is the declaration provision [2]. Do not mix it with the powers sections.
• Scope: AFSPA's extent covers seven States, but declarations apply only to notified areas [2].