Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) - Revision history

Jyoti: /* 2022: several areas of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland removed from AFSPA purview */

2023-11-13T05:59:50Z

‎2022: several areas of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland removed from AFSPA purview

Jyoti: /* ‘Dilution’ of AFSPA, ordered by SC */

2023-10-04T12:50:54Z

‎‘Dilution’ of AFSPA, ordered by SC

Jyoti: /* 2019, Assam: process of withdrawal of AFSPA begins */

2022-04-11T06:03:37Z

‎2019, Assam: process of withdrawal of AFSPA begins

Jyoti: /* AFSPA removed from Meghalaya, restricted in AP */

2020-11-19T12:37:43Z

‎AFSPA removed from Meghalaya, restricted in AP

Jyoti: /* =”SC judge vitiated trial with ‘murderer’ remark” */

2018-09-11T20:43:57Z

‎=”SC judge vitiated trial with ‘murderer’ remark”

Jyoti: /* ‘Dilution’ of AFSPA, ordered by SC */

2018-09-11T20:43:35Z

‎‘Dilution’ of AFSPA, ordered by SC

Jyoti: /* Area of applicability */

2018-09-11T00:45:44Z

‎Area of applicability

Jyoti: /* AFSPA removed from Meghalaya, restricted in AP */

2018-04-25T02:06:20Z

‎AFSPA removed from Meghalaya, restricted in AP

Jyoti: /* Area of applicability */

2018-04-23T20:04:55Z

‎Area of applicability

Jyoti: Reverted edits by Jyoti (talk) to last revision by Pdewan

2018-04-23T20:02:43Z

Reverted edits by Jyoti (talk) to last revision by Pdewan

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
  Union home minister Amit Shah, who approved the “historic” measure in consultation with the three chief ministers, attributed the decision to “the improved security situation and fast-tracked development due to consistent efforts, and several agreements to end in- surgency and bring lasting peace in northeast by the Modi government”.
-[[Category:Defence|A ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)
+==Assam==
 ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]
-[[Category:India|A ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)
+[[Category:India|A ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)
 ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)
 ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 Recalling SC judgments, which had ruled that free and fair trial was part of an accused person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioners said they were accused of ‘fake encounters’ by vested interest groups but the least the SC could have done was to ensure a fair trial. They said the issue should be referred to a five-judge bench and Justice Lokur should not hear the petitions alleging extra-judicial killings in Manipur.
-The petitioners said the issue should be referred to a five-judge bench and Justice Lokur should not hear the case
+The petitioners said the issue should be referred to a five-judge bench and Justice Lokur should not hear the case.
 =Manipur and the AFSPA=

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 “The NRC process will be through by July 30 (as directed by Supreme Court). We have been informally asked to plan where the operational units will head to after moving out of the state,” a security source said.
-[[Category:Defence|A
+==2022: several areas of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland removed from AFSPA purview==
 ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]
-[[Category:India|A
+[[Category:India|A ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)
 ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|A ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)
 ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 19 November 2020
Line 56:		Line 56:

	It is effective in the whole of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur (excluding seven Assembly constituencies of Imphal). The state governments of Assam and Manipur now have the powers to keep or revoke the Act.		It is effective in the whole of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur (excluding seven Assembly constituencies of Imphal). The state governments of Assam and Manipur now have the powers to keep or revoke the Act.
		+
		+	==2019, Assam: process of withdrawal of AFSPA begins==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F05%2F17&entity=Ar01313&sk=E9E59986&mode=text Prabin Kalita, May 17, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Twenty nine years after its imposition, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is set to be withdrawn from Assam in August, and the Centre has already asked the Army to plan its return from the state.
		+
		+	It was on November 27, 1990 — when Ulfa militancy was at its peak — that the entire state was declared a “disturbed area” and AFPSA, which grants special powers to the armed forces while conducting counter-insurgency operations, was imposed. Over the years, the Army has gradually withdrawn from several districts as the situation improved. Police and paramilitary forces have taken the Army’s place.
		+
		+	Last September, the Centre had delegated to Assam the power to extend or withdraw AFSPA. The state government has twice extended the Act, citing the upcoming publication of the final National Register of Citizens (NRC).
		+	“The NRC process will be through by July 30 (as directed by Supreme Court). We have been informally asked to plan where the operational units will head to after moving out of the state,” a security source said.
		+
		+	[[Category:Defence\|A
		+	ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]
		+	[[Category:India\|A
		+	ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|A
		+	ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)]]

	=‘Dilution’ of AFSPA, ordered by SC=		=‘Dilution’ of AFSPA, ordered by SC=

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 They said when soldiers got ambushed, they had to make split second decisions to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the country, which was on a higher pedestal than even the Constitution and which the judges take oath to protect, the officers said.
-===”SC judge vitiated trial with ‘murderer’ remark”==
+===”SC judge vitiated trial with ‘murderer’ remark”===
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F08%2F15&entity=Ar02409&sk=4A6D821B&mode=text  August 15, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 11 September 2018
Line 71:		Line 71:

	The Manipur Police too is planning to move a petition before the SC to question the efficacy of the SC’s decision to ask the CBI to register FIRs against police commandos who too faced FIRs similar to the armed forces personnel for alleged extra-judicial killings.		The Manipur Police too is planning to move a petition before the SC to question the efficacy of the SC’s decision to ask the CBI to register FIRs against police commandos who too faced FIRs similar to the armed forces personnel for alleged extra-judicial killings.
		+
		+	==‘Don’t dilute AFSPA shield’: Armymen ask SC/ 2018===
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F08%2F15&entity=Ar00504&sk=890B8D1D&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, August 15, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Apprehending dilution of the AFSPA shield against prosecution for actions against militants and insurgents in disturbed areas after the Supreme Court pressed the CBI to act in cases of alleged “extra-judicial” killings in Manipur, 356 Army officers and soldiers warned that morale and national security could be hurt by the probes.
		+
		+	The serving officers and men moved the apex court after the SC asked the CBI why it was not arresting those chargesheeted for alleged extra-judicial killings. They sought clarity in the mandate given to them to protect the integrity of the country under trying conditions.
		+
		+	The anxiety, apprehension and dissatisfaction of the petitioners, including 75 officers — a brigadier, 29 colonels, 15 lieutenant colonels, 19 majors and 11 captains — who command thousands of soldiers in anti-militancy and anti-insurgency operations in disturbed areas of the northeast and J& K, can pose for difficult question for the court.
		+
		+	With the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in force in Assam and Manipur, some of the petitioners are facing the CBI investigation in cases relating to alleged extra-judicial killings.
		+
		+	''' ‘Soldiers ask if they should continue to fight insurgents’ '''
		+
		+	A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra agreed to hear the petition on August 20 after counsel Aishwarya Bhati said the matter required urgent adjudication as the issues raised affected the morale of armed forces, tasked to maintain security and integrity of the nation.
		+
		+	“A country that doubts its soldiers and their martyrdom is bound to lead to a collapse of its sovereignty and integrity,” the Army officers among the petitioners said. They said they had been constrained to file the petition in view of an extremely hostile situation on the ground due to prosecution of officers and soldiers for bona fide actions during military operations.
		+
		+	They said questioning honest actions had a demoralising effect on officers and soldiers deployed in disturbed areas for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations in J&K and northeastern states.
		+
		+	“Soldiers never hesitate to lay down their lives in the line of duty in order to uphold the dignity of the Indian flag. However, the extraordinary circumstances in which their colleagues are being persecuted and prosecuted for carrying out their bona fide duties, without making any distinction or determination whether the acts in question were done in good faith, without any criminal intent, has compelled them to approach the SC,” the petitioners said.
		+
		+	If the armed forces were not given the protection they required to engage with enemies at the frontiers and within in actions that could mean dying in the line of duty, there would be grave peril to national sovereignty, endangering India’s existence as a constitutional sovereign democratic republic, they added.
		+
		+	The officers said soldiers under their command were asking if they should continue to fight against militants and insurgents engaged in proxy war against India or operate as per peace time yardsticks guided by the Criminal Procedure Code.
		+
		+	They said when soldiers got ambushed, they had to make split second decisions to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the country, which was on a higher pedestal than even the Constitution and which the judges take oath to protect, the officers said.
		+
		+	===”SC judge vitiated trial with ‘murderer’ remark”==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F08%2F15&entity=Ar02409&sk=4A6D821B&mode=text August 15, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	'' ‘It’s A Serious Blow To Morale Of The Force’ ''
		+
		+	Six Manipur police commandos facing prosecution in alleged extra-judicial killing cases moved the Supreme Court complaining that Justice Madan B Lokur’s remark terming them and armed forces personnel “murderers” had vitiated the impending trial in these cases.
		+
		+	The petitioners quoted Justice Lokur’s remarks during hearing of the case in which the CBI director was summoned on July 31. They claimed the judge had told the CBI director, “According to you, there are 14 murderers in these cases and they are loafing around Manipur freely. You have not arrested any of them. What happens to society? If somebody commits rape, what is there to recover? So you (CBI) will allow him to roam free?”
		+
		+	Terming the remarks unbecoming of an SC judge, the petitioners said, “Calling the members of armed forces and police force ‘murderers’ and comparing them with rapists has dealt a serious blow to the morale of the forces and their families, little realising that (responsibility to maintain) sovereignty and security of the nation is placed on the shoulders of these members of the forces, who very often lay down their lives for the safety and security of the motherland and its citizenry.
		+
		+	“With hostile neighbours around, the country can ill-afford to have a demoralised, confused and low morale force that may imperil the very existence of the nation, its Constitution, the rule of law and fair and impartial administration of criminal justice system of the country.”
		+
		+	Recalling SC judgments, which had ruled that free and fair trial was part of an accused person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioners said they were accused of ‘fake encounters’ by vested interest groups but the least the SC could have done was to ensure a fair trial. They said the issue should be referred to a five-judge bench and Justice Lokur should not hear the petitions alleging extra-judicial killings in Manipur.
		+
		+	The petitioners said the issue should be referred to a five-judge bench and Justice Lokur should not hear the case

	=Manipur and the AFSPA=		=Manipur and the AFSPA=

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 11 September 2018
Line 56:		Line 56:

	It is effective in the whole of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur (excluding seven Assembly constituencies of Imphal). The state governments of Assam and Manipur now have the powers to keep or revoke the Act.		It is effective in the whole of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur (excluding seven Assembly constituencies of Imphal). The state governments of Assam and Manipur now have the powers to keep or revoke the Act.
		+
		+	=‘Dilution’ of AFSPA, ordered by SC=
		+	==Reported reaction among Army personnel==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F08%2F14&entity=Ar01710&sk=21009E7A&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, 300 Armymen may move SC against AFSPA ‘dilution’, August 14, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	In an unprecedented step, more than 300 Army men deployed in disturbed areas of the country are likely to move the Supreme Court on Tuesday, protesting against the apex court’s direction to the CBI to register FIRs against some armed forces personnel for allegedly being involved in old encounter cases in Manipur, which they allege took away the ‘AFSPA shield’ that protected them for action during anti-insurgency operations.
		+
		+	A bench, headed by Justice Madan Lokur, had recently slammed the CBI director for delay in filing of FIRs against Manipur police commandos and armed forces personnel who were allegedly involved in what a PIL alleged as ‘extra-judicial killings’ during operations in the last two decades. The SC had asked the CBI director as to why it had not arrested the accused despite the allegations of killings. The CBI director had told the court that after the agency filed its chargesheets, it was for the trial court concerned to decide whether to grant the accused bail or send them to judicial custody.
		+
		+	However, the armed forces personnel, who under Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) enjoy virtual immunity from prosecution by police for alleged ‘excesses’ committed during operational exigencies, felt that anti-insurgency operations were vital to protect national integrity and that while doing so, they do not know when there would be a lethal burst of fire that could jeopardise their own lives.
		+
		+	The petition, likely to be filed on Tuesday and mentioned for early hearing by advocate Aishwarya Bhati before CJI Dipak Misra, says the AFSPA immunity was vital for the soldiers to undertake operations against insurgents, who are armed with sophisticated weapons and slip into neighbouring countries to frustrate hot pursuit.
		+
		+	The Manipur Police too is planning to move a petition before the SC to question the efficacy of the SC’s decision to ask the CBI to register FIRs against police commandos who too faced FIRs similar to the armed forces personnel for alleged extra-judicial killings.

	=Manipur and the AFSPA=		=Manipur and the AFSPA=

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 25 April 2018
Line 26:		Line 26:
	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/afspa-removed-from-meghalaya-restricted-in-arunachal-pradesh/articleshow/63881261.cms April 23, 2018: ''The Times of India'']		[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/afspa-removed-from-meghalaya-restricted-in-arunachal-pradesh/articleshow/63881261.cms April 23, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

		+	[[File: Insurgency in the north-east India, 2000-17; AFSPA withdrawl- Meghalya, Arunachal Pradesh. Whole of Assam and Nagaland as well as entire Manipur.jpg\|Insurgency in the north-east India, 2000-17; <br/> AFSPA withdrawl- Meghalya, Arunachal Pradesh. Whole of Assam and Nagaland as well as entire Manipur <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F04%2F24&entity=Ar00302&sk=21CB79A4&mode=text Bharti Jain, April 24, 2018: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]

	'''HIGHLIGHTS'''		'''HIGHLIGHTS'''

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 [[Category:Defence |A ]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |A ]]
 =Manipur and the AFSPA=
@@ Line 28: / Line 72: @@
 Appearing for the Congress-led state government, senior advocate V Giri said AFSPA was still needed to maintain law and order.When AFSPA was imposed, there were four prominent insurgent groups; now, there are more than a dozen, he added. The bench said, “You mean to say that in 35 years of Army presence in the state, the situation has not improved to remove the disturbed area tag from the state? Has nothing changed on the law and order front for the last three decades?“
 =See also=
 [[Irom Chanu Sharmila]]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |A ]]
-=The judicial judgements=
+=Manipur and the AFSPA=
-==Manipur and the AFSPA==
+==SC: Is AFSPA in Manipur eternal?==
-===SC: Is AFSPA in Manipur eternal?===
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=SC-Is-AFSPA-in-Manipur-eternal-15012016009028 ''The Times of India''], Jan 15 2016
@@ Line 29: / Line 28: @@
 Appearing for the Congress-led state government, senior advocate V Giri said AFSPA was still needed to maintain law and order.When AFSPA was imposed, there were four prominent insurgent groups; now, there are more than a dozen, he added. The bench said, “You mean to say that in 35 years of Army presence in the state, the situation has not improved to remove the disturbed area tag from the state? Has nothing changed on the law and order front for the last three decades?“
 =See also=
 [[Irom Chanu Sharmila]]