Which one of the following States has seen a series of strong public protests against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in force in that State ?

1. Constitutional Basis for Internal Security (basic)

To understand how India manages its internal security, we must first look at the federal structure of our Constitution. At a basic level, the responsibility for maintaining peace is divided between the Centre and the States. Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, 'Public Order' and 'Police' are placed in the State List (List II) as Entries 1 and 2 respectively M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Centre-State Relations, p.145. This means that, ordinarily, the primary responsibility to prevent crime and maintain daily peace lies with the State governments.

However, the Constitution-makers realized that some threats to security might be too large for a State to handle alone. This is where Article 355 becomes the cornerstone of internal security legislation. It imposes a sovereign duty on the Union government to protect every State against 'external aggression' and 'internal disturbance' M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Emergency Provisions, p.178. Essentially, while the State manages the 'Police,' the Union acts as a ultimate guardian to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Provision	Role in Internal Security
State List (Entry 1 & 2)	Gives States the power over Police and Public Order for day-to-day security.
Article 355	Mandates the Union to protect States from internal disturbances and external threats.
Article 356	Allows the Union to take over State administration if the constitutional machinery fails M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Emergency Provisions, p.178.

This constitutional 'duty' under Article 355 is the legal justification for the Union to deploy central forces (like the CRPF or Army) or enact special laws in troubled regions. If a situation arises where a State government cannot maintain order according to the Constitution, the Union can invoke Article 356 (President's Rule) to stabilize the region M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Emergency Provisions, p.178. Thus, internal security in India is a cooperative yet hierarchical responsibility where the Union holds the ultimate power to intervene.

Sources: M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Centre-State Relations, p.145; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Emergency Provisions, p.178; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, World Constitutions, p.710

2. AFSPA 1958: Provisions and Special Powers (intermediate)

To understand the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), we must first look at its constitutional DNA. The Act finds its legal roots in Articles 33 and 34 of the Indian Constitution. While Article 33 allows Parliament to restrict the Fundamental Rights of the armed forces to ensure discipline, Article 34 deals with 'Martial Law' and empowers Parliament to protect (indemnify) government servants for any act done while maintaining order Indian Constitution at Work, Class XI NCERT, Federalism, p.163. This creates a legal 'shield' for security personnel operating in volatile conditions.

The core of AFSPA lies in the declaration of a 'Disturbed Area'. Under Section 3, either the Central Government or the Governor of a State can declare a region 'disturbed' if they believe that the use of armed forces is necessary to aid civil power. Once this declaration is made, the military gains extraordinary powers under Section 4, which are significantly broader than those available to the police under ordinary law:

• Power to use lethal force: Officers can fire upon or use force, even causing death, against any person acting in contravention of laws (like assembly of five or more people) after giving a warning.
• Arrest without warrant: Personnel can arrest anyone who has committed, or is suspected of being about to commit, a cognizable offense.
• Search and Seize: The power to enter and search premises without a warrant to make arrests or recover arms/explosives.

Perhaps the most controversial provision is Section 6, which grants legal immunity. It states that no prosecution or legal proceeding can be initiated against personnel acting under the Act without the prior sanction of the Central Government. In practice, this sanction is rarely granted, leading to a clash with the procedural safeguards of Article 22, which normally requires an arrested person to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours Introduction to the Constitution of India, D.D. Basu, Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.134.

Feature	Ordinary Criminal Law (CrPC)	AFSPA 1958
Arrest Power	Warrant usually required; grounds must be informed immediately.	Can arrest on suspicion without a warrant.
Judicial Oversight	Must produce before a Magistrate within 24 hours.	Hand over to nearest police station 'with least possible delay'.
Immunity	Public servants have limited protection (Sec 197 CrPC).	Strong immunity; requires Central Govt permission to prosecute.

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), FEDERALISM, p.163; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.134; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.100

3. Judicial Oversight and Committees on AFSPA (exam-level)

While the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) grants extraordinary powers to the military in "disturbed areas," it does not operate in a legal vacuum. The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in balancing the demands of national security with the protection of Fundamental Rights. The foundational judicial touchstone remains the 1997-98 landmark judgment in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA but strictly mandated that the declaration of a "disturbed area" must be reviewed periodically and that the armed forces must follow a specific list of "Dos and Don’ts" to prevent the misuse of power Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), EMERGENCY PROVISIONS, p.421.

Over the years, several high-level committees have scrutinized the Act, often highlighting the friction it causes between the state and its citizens. The most notable of these was the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005), which recommended that AFSPA should be repealed. The committee argued that the Act had become a "symbol of oppression" and suggested that its necessary provisions should instead be incorporated into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to provide more legal clarity and oversight.

In the 2016 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) case, the Supreme Court fundamentally altered the landscape of accountability. It clarified that even in areas under AFSPA, the rule of law applies, and the military cannot use indefinite or excessive force against its own citizens. This judgment effectively ended the notion that the "sanction for prosecution" required from the Central Government acts as a permanent shield against investigations into human rights violations.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), EMERGENCY PROVISIONS, p.421

4. Internal Security Challenges in Northeast India (intermediate)

Internal security in Northeast India is a complex tapestry of ethnic aspirations, geographical isolation, and the state's response to insurgency. To understand the "rights-based" friction in this region, we must first look at the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958. Originally designed as a temporary measure to tackle the Naga insurgency, it grants the military sweeping powers to maintain public order in "disturbed areas," including the authority to use lethal force and immunity from prosecution without central government sanction.

While the state views AFSPA as a necessary shield for soldiers operating in hostile environments, civil society sees it as a sword that pierces through fundamental rights. The most profound resistance has emerged from Manipur. Following the 2004 custodial death of Thangjam Manorama, the state witnessed unprecedented protests, including the formation of the Apunba Lup (an umbrella body of 32 organizations) and the iconic "Mothers of Manipur" demonstration. This struggle is personified by Irom Chanu Sharmila, known as the "Iron Lady of Manipur," who undertook a nearly 16-year hunger strike (2000–2016) demanding the act's repeal.

Security challenges are not uniform across the region. In Nagaland, the focus is often on the NSCN-IM and their demand for a "Greater Nagalim," balanced by constitutional protections under Article 371-A, which prevents Parliament from interfering with Naga customary laws without state assembly consent Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Special Provisions for Some States, p.560. Conversely, in Tripura and Mizoram, tribal organizations like the TNV or the Mizo Freedom Organisation have historically fluctuated between insurgency and peace accords Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Pressure Groups, p.603.

Feature	Standard Law (CrPC/IPC)	AFSPA Provisions
Arrest Power	Requires a warrant or specific cognizable offense.	Arrest without warrant on "reasonable suspicion."
Use of Force	Strictly proportional; high accountability.	Power to shoot to kill after warning to maintain order.
Legal Protection	Police can be prosecuted for excesses.	Immunity from prosecution without Central Govt. sanction.

Sources: Politics in India since Independence, NCERT 2025 ed., Regional Aspirations, p.128; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Special Provisions for Some States, p.560; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Pressure Groups, p.603

5. Fundamental Rights vs. State Security (intermediate)

In any functional democracy, the relationship between individual liberty and state security is a delicate balancing act. While Fundamental Rights provide a shield against state overreach, they are not absolute. The Constitution of India recognizes that for the state to protect its citizens and maintain sovereignty and integrity, it must occasionally restrict personal freedoms. However, the friction arises when these restrictions are perceived as disproportionate or arbitrary.

The core of this balance lies in the concept of "Reasonable Restrictions." Under Article 19, the state can limit freedoms (like speech or assembly) on specific grounds such as public order, security of the state, or morality. Interestingly, the ground of "public order" was not originally in the Constitution; it was added by the 1st Amendment Act (1951) following judicial pushback in cases like the Cross Roads case, where the court initially refused to let the state ban journals solely to maintain order Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.623. For a restriction to be valid, it must be "reasonable" from both a substantive and procedural standpoint—meaning it shouldn't exceed what is necessary and shouldn't be imposed without a fair hearing unless extraordinary circumstances exist Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.146.

The most intense manifestation of this conflict is seen in special security legislations like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). While the state argues these laws are vital for national security in "disturbed areas," civil society often views them as a violation of Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). Article 21 ensures no person is deprived of life except by "procedure established by law" Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT, RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, p.34. Over decades, the Supreme Court has expanded this to include the right to live with human dignity and the right against inhuman treatment Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Fundamental Rights, p.90. This has led to historical movements, most notably in Manipur, where activists like Irom Sharmila engaged in a 16-year hunger strike, and organizations like the Apunba Lup protested following the 2004 killing of Thangjam Manorama, seeking to reclaim the right to dignity over the immunity granted to security forces.

Aspect	State Security Perspective	Fundamental Rights Perspective
Primary Goal	Stability, integrity, and prevention of insurgency.	Individual autonomy and protection from state tyranny.
Legal Tool	Reasonable restrictions & special acts (e.g., AFSPA).	Judicial review and Writ jurisdictions.
Article 21 View	Life can be restricted by "procedure established by law."	Procedure must be just, fair, and non-arbitrary.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.623; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.146; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, p.34; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.90

6. Civil Society Movements and Protests in Manipur (exam-level)

To understand civil society movements in Manipur, we must first look at the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). This legislation grants the military extraordinary powers in 'disturbed areas,' including the authority to use lethal force and immunity from prosecution without central government sanction. While AFSPA exists in several states, the mobilization in Manipur is unique for its sustained, creative, and gender-led resistance. The movement represents a fundamental clash between national security imperatives and individual human rights.

The turning point for civil society came in July 2004, following the custodial death of Thangjam Manorama. This event triggered an unprecedented level of public outrage, epitomized by the iconic protest of the Meira Paibis (women torch-bearers) at the Kangla Fort. To coordinate this massive public response, 32 organizations merged to form the Apunba Lup, an umbrella body dedicated to the complete repeal of AFSPA. This collective action highlights how individual grievances in Manipur often transform into a unified political demand for legislative change.

Perhaps the most poignant symbol of this struggle is Irom Chanu Sharmila, known as the 'Iron Lady of Manipur.' Following the 'Malom Massacre' in November 2000, where ten civilians were killed by security forces, she began a hunger strike that lasted nearly sixteen years. The use of the hunger strike as a tool of political conscience has a deep lineage in the Indian freedom struggle, reminiscent of Mahatma Gandhi’s first fast in 1918 A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Emergence of Gandhi, p.327 and the tragic sacrifice of Jatin Das, who died after a 63-day fast in 1929 to protest jail conditions Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), Struggle for Swaraj, p.282. Sharmila’s struggle brought international attention to the region's civil rights issues, proving that individual resilience can become the heartbeat of a larger movement.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Emergence of Gandhi, p.327; Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), Struggle for Swaraj, p.282; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Period of Radicalism in Anti-imperialist Struggles, p.64

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the legal framework of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and its role in India's internal security, this question asks you to apply that knowledge to real-world civil society movements. You've learned about the 'disturbed areas' and the immunity granted to security forces; this PYQ tests whether you can identify the specific socio-political flashpoint where these legal powers met the most sustained public resistance. This is a classic UPSC move—connecting a static legal concept to dynamic, historical events.

To arrive at the correct answer, (B) Manipur, you must look for the hallmark of 'sustained public protest.' While several states grapple with AFSPA, Manipur is uniquely defined by iconic movements like the 16-year hunger strike of activist Irom Chanu Sharmila and the 2004 demonstrations following the Thangjam Manorama incident. When you see the phrase 'series of strong public protests,' your mind should immediately go to the Meira Paibis (women torch-bearers) and the collective action of the Apunba Lup. As noted in Militarised Violence and Women’s Resistance in Manipur, these protests represent one of the most significant civil society mobilizations in post-independence India.

UPSC uses Nagaland and Jammu and Kashmir as high-quality distractors because AFSPA is indeed active there and is deeply unpopular. However, the nature of the protests in those regions often gets intertwined with broader insurgent or separatist narratives, whereas Manipur’s resistance is historically cited for its specific, civil-led focus on repealing the Act itself. Finally, Jharkhand serves as a factual trap; while it deals with Left-Wing Extremism, it is governed by different security laws, and AFSPA has never been applied there. By eliminating the outlier and identifying the state with the most iconic civil rights resistance, you can confidently select Manipur.