New Delhi, June 29: Indicating that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958�protests over which rocked Manipur last year�discriminated against North-Eastern States, the Justice BP Jeevan Reddy review committee has recommended to the UPA Government that the Act be repealed but its provisions be incorporated into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for uniform application across the country.

In its report, running into some 200 pages, the five-member panel headed by Reddy has upheld the Central Government�s role in maintenance of the internal security situation as provided under Article 355 of the Constitution.

It wants all provisions of the AFSPA retained by including them in the umbrella Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

But the panel has some riders to make these provisions more humane before they are added to the Unlawful Activities Act.

Justice Reddy submitted his report to Home Minister Shivraj Patil on June 7.The review panel was set up in November 2004 in the wake of the killing of Thangjam Manorama Devi in Manipur last July 11, allegedly by Assam Rifles personnel.

The committee was asked to review the AFSPA after Manipuri youth organisations under the Apunba Lup took to the streets, demanding that the Act be withdrawn from their State.

It is learnt that once an inter-ministerial study of the report is over, Home Minister Shivraj Patil will take the recommendations to the Union Cabinet for suitable changes in the law.

The Reddy report has suggested that AFSPA provisions should not be applied only to the North-East but should hold good for the entire country under the Unlawful Activities Act in case an internal security situation arises.

The panel has pointed out that law and order problems are not just restricted to the North-East : central Indian States have been hit by Left wing extremism.

It has recommended that the Government take these measures so that people of the North-East do not feel isolated.

What the panel wants done.

� AFSP Act should be repealed but its provisions retained in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

� AFSPA provisions should be applicable to entire country, N-E States should not be discriminated against.

� AFSPA provisions should be applied for a definite period of time.

Any extension will require Parliament approval.

� Make AFSPA provisions more humane by adding riders to its enforcement, introduce a grievance redressal mechanism.

� Supreme Court guidelines should be followed to prevent human rights abuses.

In the panel�s view, the Government, after carrying out suitable amendments, should invoke the Armed Forces Special Powers Act provisions only for a definite time-period, say six months, and should seek Parliament�s approval every time it wants to extend the law in any state.

The Reddy panel has asked for setting up of a suitable grievance redressal mechanism for AFSPA provisions and has suggested that the armed forces follow the Supreme Court guidelines (given in the Naga People�s Movement of Human Rights vs Union of India case in its judgment on November 27, 1997) while enforcing the law.

The review panel has retained clause 4 (a) of the AFSPA that empowers the armed forces to use force, including causing death, after being convinced that the individual is acting in contravention of law in a disturbed area.

But it has suggested that this force should be used after the armed forces are reasonably convinced that the individual is carrying out subversive activity.

However, the panel has suggested modifications in clause 4 (b) that empowers the armed forces to destroy shelters or fortified positions from where the military is being attacked.

It has recommended that while such shelters in inhabited areas may be destroyed, the forces should be reasonably convinced before taking any such action in residential or thickly populated areas.

On clause 4 (c) of the AFSPA which empowers the armed forces to arrest any person without warrants on ground of suspicion, the Reddy panel wants the forces to take the local representatives into confidence before enforcing the law.

The panel wants those arrested (clause 5) to be produced before the local magistrate within 24 hours of detention apart from the time taken in transportation.

Comment