AFSPA extended in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal for six more months
Why does the Centre keep renewing 'disturbed area' status in the North-East every six months?
Published 26 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Union Home Ministry has extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh for another six months, from 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027, unless it is withdrawn earlier. The notifications, issued on 25 September after a fresh review of the law and order situation, declare these areas 'disturbed' under Section 3 of the Act. The Ministry cited continuing security challenges in the North-East, particularly the prolonged ethnic conflict in Manipur.
In Manipur, the whole State stays a disturbed area except the limits of 13 police stations in five valley districts: Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur and Kakching. In Nagaland, nine districts (Dimapur, Niuland, Chumoukedima, Mon, Kiphire, Noklak, Phek, Peren and Meluri) are covered, along with 21 police stations in Kohima, Mokokchung, Longleng, Wokha and Zunheboto. In Arunachal Pradesh, the Act applies to Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts and to the Namsai, Mahadevpur and Chowkham police stations of Namsai district, which borders Assam.
Once an area is declared disturbed, the armed forces can search premises, arrest without warrant and use force, and their personnel cannot be prosecuted without the Centre's sanction. The Act's footprint has shrunk: it was lifted from Imphal municipal area in 2004, from Manipur's valley police stations in 2022 and 2023, and it no longer applies in Tripura, Meghalaya or Mizoram. But after ethnic violence broke out in Manipur on 3 May 2023, it was reimposed in six police stations across five districts on 14 November 2024. Rights groups want repeal; the government says forces need legal cover in insurgency zones.
Prelims facts
- AFSPA was enacted in 1958; under Section 3, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory or the Central Government can declare an area 'disturbed'.
- In Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court upheld AFSPA but required disturbed-area declarations to be reviewed periodically, before six months expire.
- The Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (set up in 2004, report in 2005) recommended repealing AFSPA and moving the necessary powers into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Quick recall
- Which law was extended on 25 September 2026?
- The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
- For how long does the new extension run?
- Six months, from 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027, unless withdrawn earlier.
- Which part of Manipur is outside AFSPA?
- The limits of 13 police stations in Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur and Kakching.
- Which Arunachal districts are covered?
- Tirap, Changlang and Longding, plus three police stations in Namsai district.
- Which section allows an area to be declared disturbed?
- Section 3 of AFSPA.
- What does Section 6 of AFSPA provide?
- No prosecution of armed forces personnel without the Central Government's sanction.
- Which 1997 judgment upheld AFSPA?
- Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India.
- What did the Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004) recommend?
- Repeal of AFSPA, with necessary powers moved into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Prelims practice question
Consider the following statements about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958:
1. Only the Central Government can declare an area 'disturbed' under the Act.
2. Prosecution of armed forces personnel for acts done under the Act requires the prior sanction of the Central Government.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (b) 2 only. Section 3 also allows the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory to declare a disturbed area, so statement 1 is wrong. Section 6 bars prosecution without Central sanction, so statement 2 is right.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Internal security in the North-East and the balance between security and rights
- How to use this
Use the AFSPA extension to show the North-East's continuing security challenges, especially Manipur's ethnic conflict, alongside a shrinking footprint that marks gains in peace.
- MHA extended AFSPA in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh from 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027, citing continuing challenges, particularly Manipur's prolonged ethnic conflict.
- After ethnic violence broke out on 3 May 2023, AFSPA was reimposed in six Manipur police stations across five districts on 14 November 2024, after withdrawals from valley stations in 2022 and 2023.
- Progress: AFSPA no longer applies in Tripura, Meghalaya or Mizoram, and was lifted from Imphal municipal area in 2004.
- How to use this
Use it to show that border-linked threats, including cross-border movement and narcotics, keep the security apparatus in place, and to suggest calibrated countermeasures.
- The 2026 extension covers most of Manipur and Arunachal's Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts; the security situation behind AFSPA includes cross-border movement along the Myanmar border and narcotics trafficking.
- Countermeasures: strengthen State police so the army can step back, as in Tripura, and tie every extension to published, measurable security indicators.
- How to use this
Use repeated AFSPA renewals to argue that a military-legal response alone has not ended insurgency, and that alienation and governance gaps help it survive.
- AFSPA, enacted in 1958, keeps being renewed every six months; critics say routine renewal defeats Naga People's Movement of Human Rights (1997), which required periodic review.
- The Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004) called the Act a symbol of oppression and recommended repeal, moving powers to the UAPA; the Second ARC agreed.
- In EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016), on alleged fake encounters, the Supreme Court held there is no absolute immunity for excessive force; such grievances feed alienation.
Mains practice question
AFSPA has once again been extended in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. Critically examine whether the Act remains necessary, and suggest how operational needs can be balanced with human rights. (250 words)
Model answer
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 gives the armed forces special powers in areas declared 'disturbed'. Its extension from 1 October 2026 in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh shows that the North-East still depends on it, even as its footprint has shrunk.
Why the government retains it
- Legal cover: Section 4 allows search, arrest without warrant and use of force; Section 6 requires Central sanction for prosecution, which the army sees as protection against motivated cases.
- Ground situation: ethnic conflict in Manipur since May 2023, insurgent groups, cross-border movement along the Myanmar border and narcotics trafficking.
- Calibrated use: 13 valley police stations in Manipur and most of Arunachal are outside its scope; the Act has gone from Tripura, Meghalaya and Mizoram.
Why critics oppose it
- Rights record: allegations of fake encounters led the Supreme Court in EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016) to hold that there is no absolute immunity for excessive force.
- Permanence: six-month renewals have become routine, against the spirit of Naga People's Movement of Human Rights (1997), which demanded periodic review.
- Alienation: the Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004) called the Act a symbol of oppression and recommended repeal; the Second ARC agreed.
Balancing the two
- Tie every extension to published, measurable security indicators.
- Grant or refuse prosecution sanction within a fixed time, with reasons.
- Strengthen State police so that the army can step back, as in Tripura.
- Use peace accords and development to address the causes of insurgency.
Way forward
AFSPA should be treated as a temporary tool, not a permanent condition. A phased, district-by-district withdrawal backed by police reform and political dialogue is the surest way to make it unnecessary.
The basics
Why this matters
AFSPA is one of the most debated laws in India because it sits where national security meets fundamental rights. Every six months the Home Ministry must decide whether parts of the North-East are still 'disturbed'. The latest decision keeps the Act in most of Manipur, nine districts of Nagaland and three districts of Arunachal. For UPSC, the Act links GS3 internal security with GS2 federalism and rights, and it is a regular Mains theme.
What the law allows
The Act works in two steps. First, an area is declared disturbed. Only then do the armed forces get special powers there. These include firing, after warning, on people breaking prohibitory orders, arresting without a warrant and searching premises. Arrested people must be handed to the nearest police station with the least possible delay. Finally, no court case can be started against a soldier without the Centre's sanction.
- 1Section 3Governor, Administrator or Centre declares an area 'disturbed'
- 2Section 4Powers to use force, arrest without warrant and search
- 3Section 5Arrested persons handed to police with least possible delay
- 4Section 6No prosecution without Central Government sanction
Where it applies now
The notification is precise down to police stations. In Manipur, the whole State is covered except 13 police stations in the Imphal valley districts. In Nagaland, nine full districts and 21 police stations in five more districts are covered. In Arunachal, the three eastern districts bordering Myanmar are covered, along with three police stations in Namsai district bordering Assam. This patchwork reflects the government's approach of lifting the Act area by area.
- Entire State is a disturbed area
- Except 13 police stations in 5 valley districts
- Excluded: parts of Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur, Kakching
- Nagaland: 9 districts plus 21 police stations in 5 districts
- Arunachal: Tirap, Changlang, Longding
- Arunachal: 3 police stations in Namsai district
How the footprint has changed
AFSPA once covered much more of the North-East. It was removed from the Imphal municipal area in 2004, from Tripura and Meghalaya later, and from many valley police stations of Manipur in 2022 and 2023. The trend reversed after ethnic violence erupted in Manipur on 3 May 2023, and in November 2024 it was reimposed in six police stations across five districts. The present extension continues that position.
- 1958Act passed by Parliament
- 1997Supreme Court upholds it in Naga People's Movement case
- 2004Jeevan Reddy Committee set up (its 2005 report recommends repeal); AFSPA lifted from Imphal municipal area
- 2022Withdrawn from many Manipur valley police stations
- May 2023Ethnic violence breaks out in Manipur
- Nov 2024Reimposed in six police stations in five districts
- Oct 2026Latest six-month extension begins
The debate
Supporters say soldiers cannot fight armed groups without legal protection, and that the Act is used only where local police cannot cope. Critics point to alleged fake encounters, the difficulty of getting prosecution sanction, and a sense of alienation among local people. The Supreme Court has tried to hold the middle ground: it upheld the law in 1997 but in 2016 said excessive force is not immune from inquiry.
You now know
- AFSPA extended from 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027 in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal.
- Manipur: whole State except 13 police stations in five valley districts.
- Section 3 lets the Governor, Administrator or Centre declare an area 'disturbed'.
- Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004) recommended repeal; the Supreme Court upheld the Act in 1997.
Go deeper
In one line: The Centre has renewed AFSPA for six months in parts of three North-Eastern States, keeping special powers for the armed forces there.
Why it matters for UPSC
AFSPA is a recurring Mains topic in GS3 (internal security, North-East insurgency) and GS2 (rights, federalism). Prelims asks about its sections, the committees that reviewed it and where it still applies.
The core idea
The law has two layers. First comes the Disturbed Area declaration, which must be reviewed regularly. Only then do soldiers get powers to search, arrest and use force. The Section 6 Sanction rule protects them from prosecution unless the Centre agrees. The Supreme Court upheld this structure in the Naga People's Movement Case but insisted on periodic review. The Jeevan Reddy Committee argued the Act had become a symbol of oppression and should go. The present extension shows the government still prefers a gradual, police-station-level rollback.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 1958: AFSPA enacted.
- 1997: Supreme Court upholds it.
- 2004: Jeevan Reddy Committee set up; its 2005 report recommends repeal.
- 3 May 2023: ethnic violence begins in Manipur.
- 13: Manipur police stations outside AFSPA.
- 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027: current extension.
Where to go next
- Disturbed Area: The legal label that switches AFSPA on
- Section 6 Sanction: Why soldiers cannot be prosecuted without Delhi's nod
- Naga People's Movement Case: The 1997 ruling that upheld AFSPA with conditions
- Jeevan Reddy Committee: The 2004 panel that said AFSPA should go
Go deeper: can AFSPA be phased out?
The Act was meant as an emergency law, yet parts of the North-East have lived under it for decades. The government's current approach is to shrink the Disturbed Area footprint police station by police station, as it did in Manipur's valley in 2022 and 2023, and as it did fully in Tripura and Meghalaya.
Three conditions usually precede withdrawal. First, a sustained fall in insurgent violence. Second, a State police force able to handle law and order without the army. Third, political settlements with armed groups, such as peace accords.
The weak link is accountability. The Section 6 Sanction requirement means that complaints against soldiers rarely reach trial. The Supreme Court in 2016 said excessive force in disturbed areas can be inquired into, but sanction remains a gatekeeper. The Jeevan Reddy Committee proposed a middle path: repeal AFSPA but place limited powers, with safeguards, in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
For an answer, combine the Naga People's Movement Case requirement of periodic review with present data: the coverage map, the Manipur conflict and the trend of withdrawals. That lets you argue for a time-bound, evidence-based exit rather than simple repeal or indefinite renewal.
Where to go next
- Disturbed Area: The legal label that switches AFSPA on
- Section 6 Sanction: Why soldiers cannot be prosecuted without Delhi's nod
- Naga People's Movement Case: The 1997 ruling that upheld AFSPA with conditions
- Jeevan Reddy Committee: The 2004 panel that said AFSPA should go
Disturbed Area
The legal label that switches AFSPA on
In one line: A 'disturbed area' is a place the government officially says is so troubled that the army needs extra powers there.
How it works
Under Section 3 of AFSPA, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory or the Central Government can put out a notice saying an area is disturbed. From then on, soldiers there get special powers.
Why it keeps changing
The notice is not meant to last forever. It is reviewed, usually every six months. If things calm down, the area can be taken off the list, as happened in Tripura and Meghalaya.
Where to go next
- Section 6 Sanction: Why soldiers cannot be prosecuted without Delhi's nod
- Naga People's Movement Case: The 1997 ruling that upheld AFSPA with conditions
Section 6 Sanction
Why soldiers cannot be prosecuted without Delhi's nod
In one line: Section 6 of AFSPA says no court case can be started against a soldier for actions under the Act unless the Central Government allows it.
Why it exists
The army argues that soldiers acting in dangerous places must not face a flood of false cases.
Why people worry
Critics say that permission is rarely given, so real wrongdoing may go unpunished. That is why many experts suggest deciding sanction requests quickly, within a fixed time, and always giving written reasons.
Where to go next
- Disturbed Area: The legal label that switches AFSPA on
- Naga People's Movement Case: The 1997 ruling that upheld AFSPA with conditions
Naga People's Movement Case
The 1997 ruling that upheld AFSPA with conditions
In one line: In 1997 the Supreme Court said AFSPA is constitutional, but with conditions.
What the court said
Parliament had the power to make the law. But declaring an area disturbed cannot be permanent; it must be reviewed from time to time, before six months pass. The army must also follow rules on minimum force and hand arrested people to the police quickly.
Why it matters today
The six-month extensions we see now come from this idea of regular review.
Where to go next
- Disturbed Area: The legal label that switches AFSPA on
- Section 6 Sanction: Why soldiers cannot be prosecuted without Delhi's nod
Jeevan Reddy Committee
The 2004 panel that said AFSPA should go
In one line: A committee led by retired judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy was set up in 2004 and said in its 2005 report that AFSPA should be repealed.
Why it was set up
It was formed after protests in Manipur in 2004 over the death of a woman in custody of security forces.
What it suggested
It said the law had become a symbol of hate and oppression. Instead of AFSPA, it proposed adding limited powers, with safeguards, to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The government did not accept repeal.
Where to go next
- Disturbed Area: The legal label that switches AFSPA on
- Section 6 Sanction: Why soldiers cannot be prosecuted without Delhi's nod
Take the 26 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers