AFSPA extended in parts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland for six months
The Ministry of Home Affairs extended the "disturbed area" declaration under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) in specified areas of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh for a further six months from October 1, following the mandatory periodic review of the law-and-order situation
In Manipur, the disturbed area status covers the entire state except areas falling under 13 police stations across five districts (Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur and Kakching)
In Nagaland, the extension applies to nine full districts (Dimapur, Niuland, Chumoukedima, Mon, Kiphire, Noklak, Phek, Peren and Meluri) plus specified police-station areas in five other districts
In Arunachal Pradesh, AFSPA continues in Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts, along with police-station areas in Namsai district bordering Assam
The extensions were notified through Gazette notifications, as required under the Act's procedure for declaring or continuing a disturbed area
AFSPA, 1958 — Section 3 "Disturbed Area" Declaration
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 empowers the Governor of a state, the Administrator of a Union Territory, or the Central Government to declare the whole or part of a state/UT a "disturbed area" by notification in the Official Gazette, where the use of armed forces in aid of civil power is considered necessary. Once declared, the Act grants special powers to the armed forces and Central Armed Police Forces deployed there — including the power to fire upon or use force (even to the extent of causing death) against a person acting in contravention of prohibitory orders, to arrest without warrant, and to enter and search premises without warrant.
Key Details
- Enacted in 1958, originally to address insurgency in the Naga Hills; extended in application to other northeastern states and, separately, to Jammu and Kashmir (AFSPA J&K, 1990)
- A 1972 amendment empowered the Central Government to declare any region a "disturbed area" without requiring the concurrence of the state government
- Sections most tested: Section 3 (disturbed area declaration), Section 4 (special powers of armed forces — fire, arrest, search), Section 6 (protection against prosecution without Central Government sanction)
- Disturbed area declarations are not permanent — the Supreme Court has held they must be reviewed periodically, and this is executed through six-monthly renewal notifications, which is exactly the mechanism used in this extension
The September 2026 extension is a routine six-month renewal under Section 3 of AFSPA, following the periodic review the Act's operation legally requires — the geographic carve-outs (excluded police stations in Manipur, specific districts in Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh) show the declaration being applied selectively rather than as a blanket state-wide measure.
Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997)
This five-judge Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court is the leading precedent on AFSPA's validity. It upheld the constitutionality of the Act but read in significant procedural safeguards on how "disturbed area" powers may be exercised.
Key Details
- Decided November 27, 1997; upheld AFSPA and the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 against constitutional challenge
- Held that a disturbed area declaration must be for a limited period and reviewed periodically — every six months is the practice that has followed from this — with continuation permissible only if armed forces' assistance remains essential
- Directed that before extending or imposing the declaration, the Central Government should consult the concerned state government, and that force used must be the minimum necessary
- Required that any person arrested under the Act be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, aligning AFSPA practice with the ordinary criminal procedure safeguard under Article 22(2)
The periodic six-monthly review that produced this extension is a direct institutional consequence of the safeguards this judgment mandated — it is the reason the "disturbed area" tag is renewed rather than declared once and left indefinite.
Centre-State Dynamics in Internal Security Deployment
AFSPA sits at the intersection of the Union's role in maintaining public order in disturbed areas and the state list subject of "public order" and "police" (List II, Seventh Schedule). The 1972 amendment shifted the balance toward Central primacy by allowing the Union to declare disturbed areas independent of state consent, distinguishing AFSPA deployment from the ordinary constitutional scheme where public order is a state subject.
Key Details
- "Public order" and "police" are Entry 1 and Entry 2 of the State List (List II), while "defence" and deployment of the Union's armed forces fall under the Union List
- AFSPA operates as a hybrid: Central armed forces are deployed "in aid of civil power" — a phrase also used in Article 355, which places a duty on the Union to protect states against internal disturbance
- Manipur's phased withdrawal of AFSPA from parts of the state (an ongoing trend before this year's extension) reflects state-level input despite the Centre's formal notifying power
The selective, police-station-level exclusions announced for Manipur illustrate how "disturbed area" status is calibrated based on ground assessment — a Mains-relevant example of Centre-state coordination in internal security even where the Centre holds the final notifying authority.
- AFSPA enacted: 1958; extended to J&K separately via a 1990 Act
- Latest extension: six months from October 1, 2026, covering Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh
- Manipur exclusions: 13 police stations across 5 districts (Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur, Kakching)
- Nagaland coverage: 9 full districts plus specified police-station areas in 5 additional districts
- Arunachal Pradesh coverage: Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts, plus specified police stations in Namsai district
- Governing provision: Section 3, AFSPA 1958 (declaration of disturbed area by Gazette notification)
- Landmark case: Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997) — upheld AFSPA, mandated six-monthly review and 24-hour production before a magistrate