Laws Applicable on Operation Sindoor: In the heart of the conflict-ridden Kashmir Valley, “Operation Sindoor” emerged not only as a high-stakes humanitarian and counter-insurgency mission but also as a textbook case study on the interplay between national security and the rule of law. The Indian Army, in coordination with paramilitary forces, conducted this strategic operation in April 2025 in the Kulgam and Anantnag districts, targeting entrenched terrorist groups and rescuing civilians used as human shields.

While the operational success is being hailed across the board, the legal framework within which such missions operate remains an area of critical national interest and global scrutiny. This article dissects the key Indian laws and constitutional provisions that underpin “Operation Sindoor” and similar military engagements in disturbed areas.

What is Operation Sindoor?

Launched in late April 2025, Operation Sindoor was a coordinated military crackdown on terrorist hideouts in South Kashmir. It was aimed at neutralizing heavily armed insurgents reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, who were using civilians, including women and children, as human shields.

The operation saw multi-agency coordination, involving:

• Indian Army (Rashtriya Rifles)
• CRPF (Counter-Insurgency Wing)
• Jammu & Kashmir Police (SOG)
• Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Military Intelligence

Laws Applicable on Operation Sindoor

1. Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 (AFSPA)

Key Provisions Applied:

• Section 4: Grants the armed forces the authority to use force (even to the extent of causing death), destroy arms dumps, and arrest without a warrant in a notified “disturbed area.”
• Section 6: Provides immunity to armed forces personnel from prosecution unless the central government grants sanction.

Relevance to Operation Sindoor:

AFSPA remains the backbone of any military operation in Jammu & Kashmir. The legal shield under AFSPA was critical in allowing the Army to launch preemptive strikes, conduct house-to-house searches, and engage in combat with militants.

Controversy: While AFSPA enabled swift action, human rights advocates have repeatedly criticized it for potential misuse and lack of judicial oversight.

2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)

Key Provisions Applied:

• Section 15: Definition of terrorist acts.
• Section 16–20: Punishment for terrorism, harboring terrorists, and being part of a terrorist gang.
• Section 43A–43F: Special investigative powers, including search, seizure, and detention.

Legal Context:

The terrorists targeted in Operation Sindoor were already listed under UAPA, and the organizations they belonged to are banned under the Act’s First Schedule. Arrests made during and after the operation will be prosecuted under UAPA, which allows longer detention without charge and restricted bail rights.

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Relevant Sections:

• Section 121–124A: Waging war against the Government of India, sedition.
• Section 302: Murder.
• Section 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty.
• Section 505: Statements conducing to public mischief.

Criminal Charges:

Captured or neutralized terrorists may face IPC charges in addition to UAPA. The use of civilians as human shields, for instance, could attract charges under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement) and 364A (kidnapping for ransom/terror purposes).

4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Search, Seizure, and Arrest Powers:

• In disturbed areas under AFSPA, the usual CrPC safeguards like requiring a warrant are often overridden.
• However, post-operation proceedings like judicial custody, filing of FIRs, and investigation are governed by CrPC.

5. The Geneva Conventions & Indian Obligations

India is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which lays down international humanitarian law (IHL) norms. While the conventions technically apply to international conflicts, Common Article 3 binds India to uphold humane treatment even in internal armed conflict.

Implications for Operation Sindoor:

• Detained civilians and suspects must be treated humanely.
• Using civilians as human shields is a war crime under international law, potentially strengthening India’s case against Pakistan-based terror groups in global forums.

6. Constitutional Mandate: Article 355 & 356

• Article 355: Obliges the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance.
• Article 356: Allows the imposition of President’s Rule in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery — not directly invoked here but forms the backdrop for central intervention.

Since J&K lost its special status under Article 370 (abrogated in 2019), it has been directly governed as a Union Territory, giving the Centre a stronger legal hand in coordinating military operations without state interference.

7. Human Rights and Judicial Oversight

The Supreme Court of India, in cases like Naga People’s Movement vs Union of India (1997) and Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016), has emphasized that AFSPA is not a license to kill. Even in counter-terror operations, the principles of proportionality and accountability must be upheld.

As Operation Sindoor concludes, Judicial Review of detentions, FIR scrutiny, and possible NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) monitoring will follow.

Conclusion: Law in Service of National Security

Operation Sindoor showcases India’s reliance on a multi-layered legal architecture—a complex mix of constitutional provisions, criminal law, special anti-terror legislation, and military powers under AFSPA. While the imperative of national security justifies decisive action, legal accountability remains essential to maintain democratic integrity and international credibility.

In a volatile region like Kashmir, law is not just a safeguard—it is a strategy.

Do you believe AFSPA should be repealed or amended in Jammu & Kashmir? Drop your views in the comments below.