CASE STUDY ON HUMAN

RIGHTS VOILATION IN
INDIA.

ARMED FORCES
SPECIAL POWER ACT
(AFSPA).

TAMANNA CHOUDHARY.
(30011109).Sem-2.

INDEX:
 1. INTRODUCTION Of:
I. HUMAN RIGHTS.
II. UNIVERSAL DECELARATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS.
III. UNITED NATION.
2. CASE INTRODUCTION.
AFSPA
3. INCIDENTS OF VOILATION.
4. COUNTRY (PEOPLE) VIEW ABOUT THE
VOILATION.
5. ARTICLES VOILATED(HUMAN RIGHTS).
6. REMEDIAL ACTIONS and view of:
I. HIGH COURT (MANIPUR).
II. GOVT. (SUPREME COURT).
III. UNITED NATION.
IV. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH.
V. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.
7. SOURCE OF DATA
COLLECTION
(REFERENCES).
 HUMAN RIGHTS:
Rights are defined as claims of the individual recognized by the society and enforcement
by the state, which are considered crucial claims and without which no one can in
general seek to be one’s best self. The term HUMAN RIGHTS is however, much broader
than the term rights as far as it means, as
Random House Encyclopedia records :
“ Power, conditions of existence and possession which an individual has claims or title
by virtue of being human.”
Furthermore, Human rights are those rights to which an individual is entitled by virtue
of his status as a human being. While, civil, political, and social-economic rights are
dependent on an individual’s status as a citizen of a particular state, his rights are not
determined by this condition. Human rights constitute the very source of all rights of
human being.
Thus, where an individual’s civil, political, and social-economic rights are exhausted, he
can still hope to get some relief under the umbrella of human rights.
For Instance, a foreigner, a refugee, a prisoner-of-war or a proclaimed offender may
have been left without ordinary rights, yet the beneficent hand of human rights will not
be withdrawn from over his head.
For a very long time, the protection and promotion of the rights of its people remained
the exclusive concern of each state individually. However, the most major step in this
direction of promoting and encouraging an awareness and a movement in favor of
human rights was taken in1948 with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN

RIGHTS
Acting under the provisions of UN Charter the Human Rights Commission was
established by the UN Economic and social council in February 1946. This commission
was directed to prepare recommendation and report on:
i. An international bill of Human Rights;
ii. International Conventions or Deceleration on civil, liberties, the status of
women, freedom of information and similar other matters;
iii. The protection of minorities;
iv. The prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, language, or origin;
v. Other matter concerning human rights.
The commission labored for more than 30 months and prepared the text of the universal
Deceleration of Human Rights and some other conventions. Declaration of Human
Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly by a vote of 48-0 with eight
abstentions. December 10, 1948 became a historic day because on this day, the Universal
Deceleration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly. This adoption
of this Deceleration was a historic event of profound significance and one of the greatest
achievements of United Nations, achieved within about thirty-six months of its
inception as an international organization. Now each year, 10th of December is
celebrated all over the globe as the Human Rights Day.
THE UNITED NATIONS:
The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization
that aims to maintain international peace and security, develop
friendly relations among nations, achieve international
cooperation, and be a center for harmonizing the actions of
nations. It is the largest, most familiar, most internationally
represented and most powerful intergovernmental organization in the world. The UN is
headquartered on international territory in New York City; other main offices are in Geneva, Nairobi,
Vienna and The Hague.
One of the UN's primary purposes is "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion", and member
states pledge to undertake "joint and separate action" to protect these rights.

CASE: Armed forces special power

act

Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 is an act of the

Parliament of India that grant special powers to the Indian Armed Forces Armed Forces (Special
the power to maintain public order in “disturbed areas”.The Armed Powers) Act
Forces (Special Powers) Act-(AFSPA) was passed on September 11,
1958 to help the army in tackling the disturbed areas of the Northeast
India. AFSPA was implemented in the Kashmir amid increase in the
insurgency in 1990. Presently, AFSPA, 1958 is operational in entire
States of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur (except Imphal Municipal area),
three districts namely Tirap, Changlang and Longding of Arunachal
Pradesh and the areas falling within the jurisdiction of the 8 police
stations in the districts of Arunachal Pradesh, bordering the State of
Assam.

Parliament of India

Enacted by Parliament of
India

Status: In force

DISTURBED AREA:
Section 3 of AFSPA states that:
 An area to be declared as ‘disturbed area’ is conferred on the Governor of the state or the
Administrator of the Union Territory or the Central Government. The entire area or a part of
it can be declared as disturbed by a notification in the official gazette.
 The state governments can suggest whether the act is required to be enforced or not. But
under Section (3) of the act, their opinion can be overruled by the governor or the Centre.
 Initially when the act came into force in 1958 the power to confer AFSPA was given only to
the governor of the state. This power was conferred on the central government with the
amendment in 1978 (Tripura was declared a disturbed area by the central government, over
the opposition by the state government).
 The act does not explicitly explain the circumstances on which it can be declared as
‘disturbed area’. It only states that, “the AFSPA only requires that such authority be of the
opinion that whole or parts of the area are in a dangerous or disturbed condition such that the
use of the Armed Forces in aid of civil powers is necessary.”

Historical Background
Pre-Independence

 The AFSPA – like many other controversial laws – is of a colonial origin. The AFSPA was
first enacted as an ordinance in the backdrop of Quit India Movement launched by Mahatma
Gandhi in 1942.
 A day after its launch on August 8, 1942, the movement became leaderless and turned violent
at many places across the country. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, VB
Patel and a host of others had been put behind the bars.
 Shaken by the massive scale of violence across the country, the then Viceroy Linlithgow
promulgated the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1942.
 This Ordinance practically gave the Armed Forces a “license to kill” when faced with
internal disturbances.
 On the lines of this ordinance, the Indian government promulgated four ordinances in 1947 to
deal with internal security issues and unrest arising due to partition in four provinces Bengal,
Assam, East Bengal and United Provinces.
Post-Independence
The Indian Parliament has enacted three different acts under AFSPA for different regions
1.  Armed Forces Special Powers (Assam and Manipur) Act, 1958

 AFSPA was first enacted to deal with the Naga insurgency in the Assam region.
 In 1951, the Naga National Council (NNC) reported that it conducted a “free and fair
plebiscite” in which about 99 percent of Nagas voted for a ‘Free Sovereign Naga Nation’.
There was a boycott of the first general election of 1952 which later extended to a boycott of
government schools and officials.
 In order to deal with the situation, the Assam government imposed the Assam Maintenance
of Public Order (Autonomous District) Act in the Naga Hills in 1953 and intensified police
action against the rebels. When the situation worsened, the state government of Assam
deployed the Assam Rifles in the Naga Hills and enacted the Assam Disturbed Areas Act of
1955, thus providing a legal framework for the paramilitary forces and the state police forces
to combat insurgency in the region. But the Assam Rifles and the state police forces could
not contain the Naga rebellion and the rebel Naga Nationalist Council (NNC) set up a
parallel government in 1956.
 To tackle this threat, The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance
1958 was promulgated by the President Dr. Rajendra Prasad on 22 May 1958. It was later
replaced by the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act of 1958.
 The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 empowered only the
Governors of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories to declare areas in
the concerned State or the Union Territory as ‘disturbed’.
 The reason for conferring such a power as per “Objects and Reasons'” included in the Bill
was that “Keeping in view the duty of the Union under Article 355of the Indian
Constitution, interalia, to protect every State against any internal disturbance, it is considered
desirable that the Central government should also have the power to declare areas as
‘disturbed’, in order to enable its armed forces to exercise special powers”.
 It was later extended to all North-Eastern states.

2. The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983

 The central government enacted the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers
Act in 1983, by repealing The Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers
Ordinance of 1983, in order to enable the central armed forces to operate in the state of
Punjab and the union territory of Chandigarh which was battling the Khalistan movement in
the 1980s.
 In 1983 the Act was enforced in the whole of Punjab and Chandigarh. The terms of the Act
broadly remained the same as that of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (Assam and
Manipur) of 1972 except for two sections, which provided for additional powers to the armed
forces –
i. Sub-section (e) was added to Section 4 stipulating that any vehicle can be stopped,
searched and seized forcibly if it is suspected of carrying proclaimed offenders or
ammunition.
ii. Section 5 was added to the Act specifying that a soldier has the power to break open
any locks “if the key there of is withheld”.
 As the Khalistan movement died down AFSPA was withdrawn in 1997, roughly 14 years
after it came to force. While the Punjab government withdrew its Disturbed Areas Act in
2008, it continued in Chandigarh until September 2012 when the Punjab and Haryana high
court struck it down.

3. The Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990

 The AFSPA in Jammu & Kashmir was enacted in 1990 in order to tackle the unprecedented
rise in militancy and insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir.
 If the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir or the Central Government, is of opinion that the
whole or any part of the State is in such a disturbed and dangerous condition then this Act
can be imposed.
 Jammu and Kashmir has its own Disturbed Areas Act (DAA) a separate legislation that came
into existence in 1992. Even after the DAA for J&K lapsed in 1998, the government
reasoned that the state can still be declared as a disturbed area under Section (3) of AFSPA.
 Implementation of AFSPA in J&K has become highly contentious but it still continues to be
in operation.

Powers granted to the security forces

stationed in disturbed areas
Section 4 of the Act states that: Any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned
officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces in a disturbed area may have
the following powers :-

 If he is of the opinion that in order to maintain public order it is necessary to fire upon or
use force, even to the extent of causing death, against any individual who is deemed to be
acting in contravention of any law that is in force in a disturbed area. Further, prohibiting the
assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being
used as weapons or of fire-arms, ammunitions or explosive substances. This action can be
taken up after giving such due warning that is necessary.
 If he is of the opinion that it is necessary to destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified
position or shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are
attempted to be made. Even the structure used as a training camp for armed volunteers or
utilized as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence.
 Any individual who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable
suspicion exists that he/she has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence can be
arrested without a warrant, and may use such force as necessary in order to carry out an
arrest.
 An enter and search without warrant is provided for any location to carry out such arrests or
to apprehend any individual believed to be wrongfully restrained or confined or any property
reasonably suspected to be a stolen property or any arms, ammunition or explosives believed
to be kept unlawfully in such premises and for this purpose reasonable amount of force can
be used if necessary.

AREA WHERE VOILATION

OCCURRED:
Disturbed Areas Act (DAA):
 The Assam Disturbed Areas Act was initially promulgated for Nagaland in 1955 to supress
the Naga uprising. This act is called the mini AFSPA since it provides the same powers to
the armed forces as in AFSPA.
 The state government has got the power to declare the whole or any part of the district by
notification in the Official Gazette as a disturbed area.
 Many states including the Jammu and Kashmir have repealed the Disturbed areas Act and
brought in the AFSPA.
How different is DAA from AFSPA?
 The DAA is the mini version of the AFSPA; it almost confers the same powers to the armed
forces to take control of the state in order to curb the violence.
 The only difference is that the DAA is conferred as the power of the state but AFSPA can be
invoked either by the Governor of the state or the Central Government.
Current status and issues of AFSPA and DAA in various states
Assam
 Assam was the first state to come under the AFSPA in 1958. The entire state of Assam has
been under the Act since November 1990; this was necessitated due to the rise of ULFA’s
activities in the region which was at its peak during the 1990’s.
 The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has recently expressed its readiness for a partial
withdrawal of AFSPA from Assam and Arunachal Pradesh due to the improved security
situation in these two states.
 According to data obtained from MHA through an RTI in July 2017, 31% of the complaints
with regard to human rights violations were received from Assam.
Jammu and Kashmir
 The state can confer an area as ‘disturbed’ on two grounds – either by invoking the Disturbed
Areas Act (DAA) or by AFSPA. But with the lapse of DAA as early as 1990 the state of J&K
has conferred the power to the armed forces to control the militant action by invoking
AFSPA.
 The Supreme Court in 1997, while upholding the constitutional validity of AFSPA said that
“Section 3 of AFSPA does not confer an arbitrary to declare an area as a ‘disturbed area’ and
that ‘a declaration under section 3 of AFSPA has to be for a limited time period and there
must be a periodic review of the declaration every six months prior to its expiry’.
 Based on these facts the validity of AFSPA in the region and the immunity given to the
armed forces under AFSPA can be challenged.
 According to data obtained from MHA through an RTI in July 2017, it shows that over the
last three-four years, the maximum number of complaints of human rights violation have
come from Jammu and Kashmir. J&K accounted for 49.5% of the complaints.
 While calls for review and repeal of AFSPA are growing, the government and the armed
forces cite that increasing insurgency and violence in the region justifies its necessity.
Tripura

 The AFSPA was first enforced in Tripura in 1997 when terrorism was at its peak in the
crucial border state, which shares an 856-km long border with Bangladesh.
 Members of two separatist groups – National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) and
All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF) – were sheltered and accused of getting arms training in
Bangladesh. These two insurgent groups have been demanding the secession of Tripura from
India.
 Ever since it was enforced in Tripura, the Act, as per its provisions, was reviewed and
extended after every six months.
 Local rights groups and political parties in Tripura had described the act as “draconian” and
wanted it repealed since it was oppressing the tribal population of Tripura.
 In May 2015, the Government of Tripura withdrew AFSPA after 18 years due to the
consistent dip in the insurgent activities. The government religiously conducted the six
months review as per the Supreme Court guidelines of 1998 and on seeing the reduced
militant activity and normal functioning of the region decided to withdraw AFSPA.
Manipur 

 The state of Manipur was first given ‘disturbed area’ status in 1980. This was done to combat
four insurgent groups which were active in the state at that time.
 Some Manipuri’s consider their state’s merger with India in 1949 to have been signed under
“duress,” and a large number of insurgent groups demanding a separate state are active in the
state. These include the United National Liberation Front of Manipur, the People’s
Liberation Army of Manipur, and People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak.
 The primary role of the Army in Manipur is to engage in counter-insurgency operations. The
state shares a border with the Republic of Myanmar, from where several terrorist outfits
operate.
 In July 2016, the Supreme Court questioned the validity of AFSPA which is in force in state
of Manipur since 1958. The SC stated that the armed forces should not be used to control its
own citizens and also should not treat every person carrying a weapon in the disturbed area
as a militant/ insurgent.
 The SC said the state or the central government can impose AFSPA in a disturbed region to
enforce normalcy within a stipulated time period.
 It has been alleged that over 1,528 people died in extra-judicial killings (‘fake encounters’)
carried out by the army between 1979 and 2012 in Manipur. The Supreme Court said that the
army and paramilitary forces couldn’t use “excessive and retaliatory force” in Manipur, and
asked for a report on alleged fake encounters in the state.
 Recently in July 2017 the Supreme Court directed the CBI to setup a Special Investigative
Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations of fake encounters and human rights violations
under the AFSPA in Manipur.
 The public interest litigationwhich led to intervention by the Supreme Court was filed by the
Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association Manipur, which has recorded 1,528
deaths between 1979 and 2012.
 The association is a registered trust whose members are women who have lost sons and
husbands to violence by the state police and other security forces, including the Army and the
Assam Rifles.
 The Supreme Court’s July 2017 judgementon alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur takes
an important institutional step. It recognises the presence of state violence in conflict areas. It
also notes that the victims of such violence have no access to justice, which is a basic human
right recognised by the Constitution.
Arunachal Pradesh

 Three districts – Tirap, Changlang, Longding and 16 other police station limits in the state
have been specified as ‘disturbed areas’ under Section 3 of AFSPA.
 One of the primary reasons given by the Central government for the continued imposition of
AFSPA in Arunachal was the increase in kidnapping and extortion activities and killing of
security forces by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) and NSCN-K in
these areas.
 In 2015, the centre initiated on extending AFSPA for the entire state, but due to huge protests
from the state government it was withdrawn.
 In May 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs had extended the AFSPA for 3 months by stating
that these three border districts of Arunachal were being used by militants belonging to the
National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) to escape to Myanmar.
 The Ministry of Home Affairs has recently expressed its readiness for a partial withdrawal of
AFSPA from Assam and Arunachal Pradesh due to the improved security situation in these
two states.
Meghalaya

 In Meghalaya a region along the 20km belt having common access with the Assam region is
under AFSPA.
 Recently in November 2015 the High Court of Meghalaya has made a suo-moto suggestion
to the central government to impose AFSPA in the Garo hill region of Meghalaya.
Mizoram
  The insurgency in Mizoram came to an end after the signing of the Mizoram Peace Accord in
1986. Since then Mizoram has been a peaceful state.
 But there has been no attempt from the government to lift AFSPA from the state.
Nagaland

 The AFSPA has been in force in Nagaland for several decades and has been applicable for
the entire state of Nagaland
 It has not been withdrawn even after a framework agreement was signed on August 3, 2015
by Naga insurgent group NSCN-IM general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah and the
government’s interlocutor R N Ravi in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
 Recently AFSPA has been extended in June 2017 for six more months by the central
government due to increased insurgency, killings, loot and extortion in various parts of
Nagaland leading to the extension of the “disturbed area” in the region.

INCIDENTS OF VOILATION AND

COUNTRY(PEOPLE) VIEW ON THE
VOILATION :
Though in all the areas where AFSPA is applicable, there are cases of violation but my case
study is on the state “MANIPUR” and “JAMMU AND KASHMIR”.

“MANIPUR”
The annexation of Manipur into the Indian Territory in 1949 was not fully welcome to the
people of Manipur. It was annexed through an accord signed between the King of Manipur Bodh
Chandra and the Indian state. The seeming discontent of the people was eventually expressed
through various insurgent movements in the state. The militarisation of the state of Manipur was
followed thereafter to curtail the voice of people for freedom and human rights. The armed
forces of the state were stationed with special powers. Gradually the powers became a form of
atrocity for the civilians and their rights. Horrifying stories of atrocity meted out by the armed
forces became a regular feature of the lived experiences of the people. Mostly under the guise of
an encounter, such atrocities took place and people bore the brunt without ‘protest’. In the
process a ‘fear psychosis’ was created in the minds of the people perpetuating a culture of
silence towards the extreme form of violation of human rights and dignity (Laishram Chan,
2014). In these existing conditions, the event, which triggered off the people’s movement in
Manipur, was the Malom massacre.
1. MALOMMASCCARE:(caused death)
Ten innocent civilians including a 62 years old woman were shot dead by the personnel
of the 8th Assam Rifles aftermaths of a bomb attack on an AR convoy at Malom Makha
Leikai. At least 42 persons, including four women, were Hospitalized after they were
brutally assaulted by Assam Rifles troops during combing operations mounted in the
Malom area after the bomb attack on an AR convoy. The two days curfew imposed by
the Government of Manipur had paralyzed life almost completely in Imphal city. Life
came to a screeching halt in the capital city and police personnel were stationed at all
strategic point of the capital city. Commercial centers downed shutters and Imphal city
resembled a ghost town. On 2 November 2000, at around 3:20 pm ten innocent
civilians including a 62 year old woman were shot dead by personnel of the Assam Rifles
at Malom Makha Leikai Boroi Makhong following a bomb attack on an AR convoy along
the Tiddim road. Following the explosion, the AR troops got down from their vehicles
and began firing towards people who were running for cover. Eight persons, including a
middle-aged woman, were killed at a set of bus stop at Malom Makha Leikai, while two
others died near a culvert inside the village. 

RECALLING THE INCIDENT

As 70-year-old Samarendra Singh overlooks the empty courtyard of his house, his eyes moisten
as he recounts the horror of losing his 17-year-old son in the massacre on November 2, 2000. On
his way to his physics tuition classes, Shanti Kumar and his friends were waiting at the local bus
stop when Assam Rifles personnel allegedly opened fire indiscriminately following a blast in the
area. 10 innocent civilians lost their lives in the incident which remains infamous as the Malom
massacre.
"I'm quite surprised by her move but maybe she wants to gauge the public mood so she made
such announcement," Singh says, adding that it is her personal decision and people still regard
her highly. Her sacrifice can 'never be wiped away', says the septuagenarian.
One Ngangom Dayabati Devi, 38, of Mekola Maning Leikai was hit by a bullet at the forehead
while sitting outside her house. At least 42 persons, including four women, were Hospitalized
after they were brutally assaulted by Assam rifles troops during combing operations mounted in
the Malom area after the bomb attack on an AR convoy. According to the victims, following the
bomb attack and the firing, AR personnel entered the locality in a very angry mood and began
assaulting all the male residents of the area they could find. With the commencement of the
organized search operations in the area, the female populace and the minors were called out from
their homes and detained on the Tiddim road from 7 pm till midnight. The male civilians were
initially detained inside their homes before gathered along the local village roads.
Khaidem Amutombi Singh, who was among those seriously injured, said two AR personnel
entered his house, and one of them took a swipe at him with the barrel of an AK-47, but missed
as he ducked. He was however hit in the head by butt of an SLR and collapsed. His three
brothers were also injured after being assaulted by the AR personnel. Soibam Maimu Devi, 40
suffered hand fracture after being beaten by the AR. Among the worst victims are Sagolshem
Ibochaobi, 57, who sustained injuries at back, waist and leg after he was kicked and hit with
gunbutts. His daughter, Ibetombi Devi, who was suffering from high fever, was also beaten by
the troops. Laishram Keso, 75, was beaten up at his fish farm at Malom Loukhong and sustained
injuries, at back and waist. Laishram Dhiren, 28, Thokchom Mani, and Laishram Thoiba, 31,
who were harvesting grain at a nearby paddy field was also the target of the AR troops. They
were reportedly made to kneel on the road and then kicked and hit with sticks and gunbutts.
Others seriously injured include Th. Manihar, 35, Th Thoiba, Ch Jayanta, Ch Chakritombi, and
Waikhom Bimol. Laishram ongbi Thoibi, 52, said an AR personnel put a gun to her forehead,
and demanded the whereabouts of the UGs. Local sources add that after the Indian Reserve
Battalion and the Assam Rifles completed their combing operations last night, the villagers were
sent back to their homes at around midnight. The injured were later evacuated to hospital. During
another search operation on the next morning at around 4 am, Pukhrambam Ibocha, 27 was
severely beaten up, sustaining injuries at face, chest and waist. The Chief Minister of Manipur
Mr. Wahengbam Nipamacha's own security Officer, Laishram Shamo, of Tulihal Malom Mayai
Leikai, was among those beaten by the rampaging AR troops. Shamo, who sustained injuries at
buttock, left leg, and right arm said he was kicked and hit with gunbutts by the troops even after
he disclosed his identity.
COUNTRY(PEOPLE) VIEW ON MALOM
MASCCARE:
 Irom Chanu
Sharmila:
“Iron Lady” Went on a
Hunger Strike for 16
Years.
Sharmila began what could be the world’s
longest hunger strike in 2000 in protest of
India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The
law allows Indian armed forces who are
deployed in areas the government deems “disturbed
areas” to act with near impunity and shoot, kill and
occupy civilian houses at will. The incident, “Malom Massacre” by infuriated civilians,
prompted Sharmila to begin a hunger strike. She vowed to continue it until the AFSPA
was repealed. She ended the fast on 9 August 2016, after 16 years of fasting. Having refused food
and water for more than 500 weeks, she has been called "the world's longest hunger striker".On
International Women's Day, 2014 she was voted the top woman icon of India by MSN Poll.
In 2014 two parties asked her to stand in the national election,
but she declined. She was then denied the right to vote as a
person confined in jail cannot vote according to law. On 19
August 2014 a court ordered her release from custody,
subject to there being no other grounds for detention. She
was re-arrested on 22 August 2014 on similar charges to
those for which she was acquitted, and remanded in judicial
custody for 15 days. Amnesty International has declared her
as a prisoner of conscience. She began her fast in Malom on
5 November, and vowed not to eat, drink, comb her hair or
look in a mirror until AFSPA was repealed. Three days after
she began her strike, she was arrested by the police and
charged with an "attempt to commit suicide", which was
unlawful under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at that time, and was later transferred to judicial
custody. Her health deteriorated rapidly, and nasogastric intubation was forced on her from 21
November in order to keep her alive while under arrest. Sharmila has been regularly released and
re-arrested every year since her hunger strike began.

2. Thangjam Manorama:

Thangjam Manorama (1970–2004) was a victim. She was killed by the Indian paramilitary
unit, 17th Assam Rifles on 11 July 2004. Her bullet-ridden and badly mutilated dead body was
found abandoned three kilometers away from her home where she was arrested the earlier night.
She was shot several times. Investigations revealed that she was tortured and raped before being
killed but there was involvement of Assam Rifles.
Disparities in official version: At the time of the arrest, no incriminating items were found, as
per the arrest memo. Later it was stated that a grenade and other items had been seized from her
home. Army Rifles claimed that she was shot while trying to escape. However, no blood was
found near the body despite six bullet wounds. No soldier was identified as having tried to run or
detain her. Given these disparities, a commission of inquiry was set up by the Manipur
government in 2004, and submitted its report in Nov 2004. However, the Guwahati High court
also looked into the matter and ruled that since the Assam Rifles had been deployed under the
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, the state government did not have jurisdiction over
them, and the case should be dealt with by the centralgovernment. Thus, the report was never
released subject to this judgment.

COUNTRY (PEOPLE) VIEW ON THAGJAM

MANORAMA:
 Manorama Death Lead to Manipuri women
nude protest against Army: Women in Manipur lead the
battle against drug menace, human rights violation, corruption, Armed Forces (Special
Powers) Act (AFSPA) and now the Citizenship Bill in the north eastern state.

“KASHMIR”
SEXUALVOILENCE: When it comes to Jammu and
Kashmir, women face threat to their bodies, and mental
health, not only from State actors, but also from the non-state
actors. Sexual violence that occurs in such situations is not a
question of sexual gratification, neither is it incidental. It is
actually a systemic and institutionalized weapon, as was
noted by the Justice Verma Committee. It is used as a mode
of repression, which is a part of a much larger framework that
uses rape as a form of punishment against the civilians.
1. 2009 Shopian rape and murder case:
The Shopian rape and murder case is the abduction, rape and murder of two young women
allegedly by Indian troops [1] in mysterious circumstances between 29 and 30 May 2009 at
Bongam, Shopian district in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Two women who were
sisters-in-law went missing from their orchard on the way home on 29 May 2009. The next day
morning, their bodies were found both one kilometer apart. Local police rejected the allegations
saying that the women appeared to have drowned in a stream. The villagers alleged that both
were raped and murdered by the security forces. A protest called up by a separatist leader turned
violent and the administration declared a curfew-like situation lasted for over 47 days. A press
release by the police on 30 May stated "Post-mortem conducted revealed no marks on the dead
bodies including private parts." No FIR was registered for either rape or murder and the
government of Jammu and Kashmir ordered for a judicial probe by Justice Muzaffar Jan into the
incident because of people's lack of faith in police investigations. In a strange twist to the
Shopian rape and murder case, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the victims has
reportedly told investigators that she submitted her own vaginal swab samples instead of one of
the victim's. On 7 June 2009, Jammu and Kashmir police filed FIR of rape and murder following
widespread protest across the state.

2. Kunan Poshpora incident:

The residents of the Kunan Poshpora neighbourhood stating that militants had fired on security
forces nearby, which prompted the search operation by the forces. [2] On February 23, 1991 The
paramilitary troops of the Central Reserve Police Force and the Border Security Force cordoned
off the twin villages of Kunan and Poshpora to conduct a search operation for the militants. The
men in the village were assembled outside and interrogated about the militant activity while the
village was searched. After the search operation was over, some of the villagers claimed that
many women were allegedly raped by soldiers that night.
Even when investigations are ordered, they never result in prosecutions, for example, a
magisterial inquiry was ordered in the case of five women reportedly raped near Anantnag on
December 5, 1991, but the magistrate’s report, till date, has not been submitted. Therefore, the
judiciary’s hands are tied, either due to procedural concerns (weak investigations) or due to
political motivations.Kashmir Valley has recorded the highest instances of sexual violence
perpetrated by uniformed men, compared to other conflict zones of the world. Despite this, out of
all the cases that have been reported, not a single one has ever led to the prosecution of the
accused.

Thus,Army personnel have used rape, as a systemic weapon to be used against ‘militant
sympathisers’, or wives of who they “think” might be militants. After the crackdown against
Kashmiri insurgents began, army personnel started using rape as a weapon, and raped over 882
women in that year alone. As per a study conducted by Medecins Sans Frontiers in 2005, 11.6%
of the interviewees had been survivors of sexual violence, and one in every seven had witnessed
rape.

(UDHR)ARTICLES VOILATED:

Article 1.
 
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3.
 
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
 
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.

Article 7.
 
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12.
 
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right
to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.(THIS)
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

REMEDIAL ACTIONS:
 HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR:
The Manipur High Court has ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation for each of the families of 10
people killed by the Assam Rifles in November 2000, in what was later alleged to be a fake
encounter. But for the families of those who were killed 14 years ago, compensation is just the
first step towards justice.

 Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court said that any encounter carried out by armed forces in the garb of AFSPA should
be subjected to thorough inquiry. In the words of supreme court "It does not matter whether the
victim was a common person or a militant or a terrorist, nor does it matter whether the aggressor
was a common person or the state. The law is the same for both and is equally applicable to both.
This is the requirement of a democracy and the requirement of preservation of the rule of law
and the preservation of individual liberties."
SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES 1998
In the case of Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India, the validity of
AFSPA was challenged before the Supreme Court and the five judge bench concluded that the
act cannot be considered as violative of the Constitution and the powers conferred under the
section 4 and 5 of the Act are not arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore not in violation of
the provisions of the Constitution.
Further the guidelines stated that

 The army personnel are required to strictly follow minimum force under Section 4 against
suspected of violating prohibitive orders.
 A person arrested and taken to custody under section 4 has to be handed over to the nearest
police station within 24hours of such arrest.
 The act has to be reviewed every six months by the state.
SUPREME COURT ORDERS – 2016 to 2017
The 2016 judgement: Supreme Court’s ruling against the alleged encounter killings carried out
under AFSPA came due to the plea submitted by the victim’s family of 1528 encounter killings
carried out since 1979 in Manipur. The bench said “It does not matter whether the victim was a
common person or a militant or a terrorist, nor does it matter whether the aggressor was a
common person or the state. The law is the same for both and is equally applicable to both…
This is the requirement of a democracy and the requirement of preservation of the rule of law
and the preservation of individual liberties”.
The Supreme Court judgement said:

 Every death in the ‘disturbed areas’, be it of common person or insurgent, should be

thoroughly enquired by the CID at the instance of the NHRC.
 Not every armed person violating the prohibitory order in a disturbed area is an enemy. Even
though he is considered as an enemy a thorough investigation has to be conducted, since
every citizen of India is entitled to all the fundamental rights including article 21 of the
constitution.
 Even if the enquiry finds the victim to be an enemy, a probe should look into whether
excessive or retaliatory force was used.
 There is no concept of absolute immunity for army personnel who commit a crime.
The July 2017 judgement:  Supreme Court’s recent judgement on alleged unlawful encounter
killings in Manipur has marked an important institutional step –

 It recognises the presence of state violence in conflict ridden areas. It also notes that the
victims of such violence have no access to justice, which is a basic human right recognised
under the Constitution.
 The Supreme Court has overruled the objections of the Centre and the Army and ordered the
Central Bureau of Investigation to set up a special investigation team to probe encounter
deaths. The case has gone a long way in piercing the institutional blindness to violence by
members of the security forces in conflict zones.
 Both the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court in 2014 have laid
down the guidelines to be followed by the state in case of encounter deaths. It states that first
an FIR should be filed, investigation should be conducted by an independent agency and not
by officers of the same police station and a magisterial enquiry needs to be held.
 These rules, however, have remained on paper in most states. In Manipur, the Supreme Court
observed that not a single FIR was filed against any uniformed personnel or members of the
state police forces. Instead, charges have been filed against the victims for alleged violations
of law and order in a disturbed area.
 United Nations view:
 When India presented its second periodic report to the United Nations Human Rights
Committee in 1991, members of the UNHRC asked numerous questions about the validity of
the AFSPA. They questioned the constitutionality of the AFSPA under Indian law and asked
how it could be justified in light of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, ICCPR. On 23 March 2009, UN Commissioner for Human Rights
Navanethem Pillay asked India to repeal the AFSPA. She termed the law as "dated and
colonial-era law that breach contemporary international human rights standards."
 On 31 March 2012, the UN asked India to revoke AFSPA saying it had no place in Indian
democracy. Christof Heyns, UN's Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions said "During my visit to Kashmir, AFSPA was described to me as 'hated' and
'draconian'. It clearly violates International Law. A number of UN treaty bodies have
pronounced it to be in violation of International Law as well."
Human Rights Watch in 2009 described the Indian police as a ‘broken system’ and a ‘dangerous
anachronism’. It stated that the Indian police have failed to evolve from the ruler-supportive,
repressive force they were designed to be under colonial rule. While much of India is in the
process of rapid modernisation, the police continue to use abuse and threats as their primary tools
of investigation and law enforcement. The force’s institutional culture discourages officers from
acting otherwise, failing to give them the resources, training, ethical environment and
encouragement to develop professional policing tactics. Many officers are ordered or expected to
commit abuses.
As said by Colin Gonsalves, the founder of Human Rights Law Network, “crimes committed by
men in uniform which are not connected with their duties should not come under the immunity
clauses of laws such as the AFSPA. The situation today is that even for the rape and killing of a
person in custody, which does not involve public duty at all, the offenders go scot free.”

 AMNESTY INTERNATIONA ON SHARMILA HUNGER STRIKE:

India’s treatment of Sharmila and the continuation of the AFSPA has drawn
international condemnation. In a statement about the end of her hunger strike and her
likely release from custody, Amnesty International senior campaigner Abhirr VP
said, “The government has arrested her, confined her to a hospital room and force fed
her for 16 years, seemingly to break her will.” But though the “Iron Lady” has changed
her tactics, her will seems unbroken.
In 2013 Amnesty International declared her a Prisoner of conscience, and said she "is being held
solely for a peaceful expression of her beliefs." The influence made by Irom Sharmila is often
considered as powerful as the influences by personalities in the past and presen.
Sharmila was awarded the 2007 Gwangju Prize for Human Rights, which is given to "an outstanding
person or group, active in the promotion and advocacy of Peace, Democracy and Human Rights".
She shared the award with Lenin Raghuvanshi of People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights, a
northeastern Indian human rights organisation.
In 2010, she won a lifetime achievement award from the Asian Human Rights Commission.[37] Later
that year, she won the Rabindranath Tagore Peace Prize of the Indian Institute of Planning and
Management, which came with a cash award of 5,100,000 rupees, and the Sarva Gunah
Sampannah "Award for Peace and Harmony" from the Signature Training Centre.
REFERENCE:
 BOOK -Indian Polity, BY- M. Laxmikanth.
 BOOK -International Politics, Theory and Practice, BY- U.R. Ghai.
 BOOK- An Introduction To Political Theory, BY- O.P.Gauba.
 BOOK- International Relations, BY- Vinay Kumar Malhotra.
 https://indiacode.nic.in/show-data?
actid=AC_CEN_28_38_00003_195828_1517807319490&orderno=2
 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-is-afspa-and-where-is-
it-in-force/article23648102.ece/amp/
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272302385_Irom_Chanu_S
harmila_and_the_Movement_against_Armed_Forces_Special_Powers
_Act_AFSPA
 https://www.livemint.com/Politics/QfAKjJ49QWPGDqi5B5LHfP/Why-
AFSPA-has-been-removed-from-some-areas.html
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_(Special_Powers)_Act
 https://www.un.org/en/
 https://www.hrw.org/tag/afspa
 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-is-asfpa-and-
powers-given-to-armed-forces-1525695112-1
 https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/understanding-the-armed-forces-
special-powers-act/
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irom_Chanu_Sharmila
 https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/the-massacre-in-manipur-that-
prompted-irom-sharmilas-fast-unto-death-sixteen-years-ago
 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/manipurs-malom-massacre-high-
court-orders-rs-5-lakh-compensation-for-victims-families-709536
 http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/congress/4568/publications/20001
102.html
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Shopian_rape_and_murder_case
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunan_Poshpora_incident
 https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2017/03/the-norm-of-sexual-violence-
and-impunity-in-jk-2/
 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39179515
 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/if-you-remember-manipuri-
women-only-for-nude-protest-against-army-think-again-1436411-2019-
01-22
 http://infochangeindia.org/42-human-rights/analysis/9355-impunity-
under-afspa.html
 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-indias-iron-lady-
went-on-a-hunger-strike-for-16-years-180960075/