Afspa And Criminal Law Debates
1. What is AFSPA?
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is a law enacted by the Indian Parliament that gives special powers to the Indian Armed Forces in "disturbed areas." The Act empowers armed forces to:
Use force, including lethal force, against individuals if they are suspected of acting against the state.
Arrest without a warrant.
Enter and search premises without a warrant.
Shoot to kill in certain situations, after due warning.
AFSPA is controversial because it often shields armed forces personnel from prosecution and limits judicial scrutiny.
2. The Criminal Law Debate in AFSPA
The main issues in the criminal law debates concerning AFSPA are:
Immunity from prosecution: Armed forces personnel cannot be prosecuted without prior government sanction.
Violation of fundamental rights: Allegations of abuse, extrajudicial killings, torture, and violation of human rights.
Constitutional validity: Whether AFSPA violates the fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
Balance between national security and civil liberties.
3. Case Laws Explaining AFSPA & Criminal Law
Case 1: Naga People's Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts: This case dealt with the constitutionality of AFSPA in the context of human rights violations in Nagaland.
Issue: Whether AFSPA violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that AFSPA is a valid law but its powers must be used sparingly and reasonably. The Court emphasized the need for armed forces to exercise powers with caution and restraint.
Significance: Established that even under AFSPA, the state is responsible for preventing human rights abuses and ordered strict scrutiny over armed forces’ actions.
Case 2: Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 170
Facts: Families of victims filed a petition alleging fake encounters in Manipur where armed forces killed civilians under AFSPA.
Issue: Can armed forces be prosecuted for fake encounters without government sanction under AFSPA?
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a probe by an independent body is necessary to investigate alleged fake encounters. The Court stressed that immunity under AFSPA is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to life.
Significance: Reinforced that prior sanction for prosecution cannot be a shield for impunity in cases of grave human rights violations.
Case 3: Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526
Facts: Though not directly an AFSPA case, this case is significant for its treatment of excessive use of force and right to life under Article 21.
Issue: Held that police or armed forces cannot use excessive force violating the right to life.
Judgment: The Court held that “right to life” includes the right to live with human dignity, and arbitrary or excessive force is unconstitutional.
Significance: This principle is often invoked in AFSPA-related cases where use of force by armed forces is challenged.
Case 4: People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts: PUCL challenged the use of AFSPA in Manipur and Nagaland, citing rampant human rights violations.
Issue: The Court examined the validity of AFSPA and the protection it offers to armed forces from prosecution.
Judgment: The Court upheld AFSPA's constitutional validity but emphasized strict compliance with procedure and cautioned against misuse of powers.
Significance: The ruling struck a balance between security and fundamental rights, urging accountability while recognizing the necessity of AFSPA in disturbed areas.
Case 5: Naga People's Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 742
Facts: The petitioners challenged the powers given under AFSPA and requested judicial scrutiny of all cases of violence by armed forces.
Issue: Whether the power to impose AFSPA and the immunity provided under it are subject to judicial review.
Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified that AFSPA does not confer unbridled power and that every use of force is subject to judicial review.
Significance: Affirmed that even under AFSPA, the use of force must be proportional, necessary, and reasonable.
Case 6: Arunachal Pradesh vs. Khudiram Chakma (1997) 6 SCC 405
Facts: The issue was regarding the applicability of AFSPA and the need for government notification declaring disturbed areas.
Judgment: The Court held that proper notification is essential for AFSPA’s applicability. Without it, the powers under AFSPA cannot be exercised.
Significance: Ensured procedural safeguards and clarified that powers under AFSPA cannot be used arbitrarily.
4. Summary of Legal Debates
Constitutionality: AFSPA has been held constitutional by the Supreme Court, citing national security concerns.
Immunity and Accountability: While AFSPA provides protection to armed forces, the Court insists on accountability, cautioning against abuse of power.
Judicial Review: Use of force, arrests, and searches under AFSPA are subject to judicial scrutiny.
Human Rights: Courts have stressed adherence to fundamental rights even in disturbed areas.
Requirement of Government Sanction: Prosecution of armed forces personnel requires prior sanction from the government, but courts have urged transparency and speedy investigations in abuse cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments