Editor,
The imposition of the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014 (APUAPA) on members of the Pan Arunachal Joint Steering Committee (PAJSC) has sparked intense debate across the state, with many questioning the government’s approach to handling law and order issues. Critics have raised concerns over what they describe as the selective use of stringent legal provisions, noting that the same law has not been invoked against those allegedly involved in violence during the ongoing All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union election process.
The APUAPA was enacted to prevent activities that threaten public order, safety and essential services in the state. The Act empowers authorities to take preventive measures, including the detention of individuals suspected of involvement in unlawful activities that could disturb peace and stability. However, the application of such a stringent law against members of the PAJSC had drawn criticism from several quarters.
The PAJSC has been actively mobilising public opinion on issues related to competitive examinations conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) and the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB). Between 2022 and 2024, the committee organised several protests and public movements to press for its demands and raise concerns over the examination processes. During this period, several members and supporters involved in the protests were detained under provisions of the APUAPA.
While protests and demonstrations are part of a democratic society, invoking a preventive detention law against protesting leaders raises questions about the balance between maintaining law and order and safeguarding democratic rights.
In recent days, reports of clashes and disturbances during the AAPSU election process have also drawn attention. The issue has gained further traction as comparisons are being made with incidents of violence allegedly involving supporters of rival presidential candidates, which reportedly resulted in damage to public and private property.
A video that recently circulated on the social media platform Facebook purportedly shows a person firing a pistol at a target. Despite the circulation of the video, the individual concerned has reportedly not been arrested so far.
On the evening of March 2, violence reportedly broke out at Chandranagar in the Itanagar Capital Complex between supporters of rival presidential candidates. The clash allegedly involved multiple gunshots being fired and resulted in damage to several private vehicles. According to reports, no arrests have yet been made in connection with the alleged use of firearms or the damage caused.
Notably, such an open display and alleged use of firearms has never been reported in the history of AAPSU elections or other student body elections in the state. However, the APUAPA was not invoked in connection with these incidents. It was only seen that those in positions of authority condemned the violence, with no visible action taken in accordance with the law.
However, when the PAJSC had announced plans to organise a peaceful rally or a capital shutdown, the APUAPA was invoked and members and supporters of the committee were placed under preventive detention for 31 days under provisions of the Act.
This contrast has fuelled allegations of selective enforcement of the law. Many believe that laws meant to maintain public order should be applied uniformly, regardless of the group or individuals involved. Legal observers note that preventive laws such as APUAPA carry significant implications for civil liberties and are generally expected to be used only in situations where there is a clear and serious threat to public order. Consequently, the decision to invoke such legislation often invites close scrutiny from civil society and the public. Several voices from civil society have called for greater transparency and consistency in law enforcement to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.
Toko Young