Why in the news?
- Sonam Wangchuk, prominent climate activist and educationist of Ladakh was detained under the National Security Act of 1980
National Security Act (NSA) of 1980
- What is it?:
- The National Security Act (NSA) was enacted in 1980 by the Parliament of India.
- NSA empowers the Central and State governments to detain individuals to maintain public order and national security.
- It replaced earlier preventive detention laws such as the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971.
- Key Provisions:
- Preventive Detention Powers: An individual can be detained to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to-
- Defence of India
- Security of India
- Relations of India with foreign powers
- Security of the State
- Maintenance of public order
- Maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
- Duration of Detention:
- Initial detention: Up to 3 months without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board.
- With Advisory Board’s approval: can be extended to 12 months (in practice, renewable periodically).
- Advisory Board:
- Consists of three High Court judges (appointed by the President).
- Reviews detention cases and gives opinion on justification of detention.
- Authority to Detain: Central Government, State Governments, and certain empowered District Magistrates/Commissioners.
- No Judicial Proceedings Required Initially: Detention under NSA is preventive, not punitive, hence no trial or charge sheet is necessary at the initial stage.
- Preventive Detention Powers: An individual can be detained to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to-
- Constitutional Basis:
- Preventive detention is permitted under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.
- Provides a legal framework, but is considered an exception to the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
- Advantages:
- Protection of National Security:
- Provides a legal tool to detain individuals whose activities threaten the defence of India, security of the state, or foreign relations.
- Useful in countering espionage, sabotage, and terrorist activities before they materialize.
- Maintenance of Public Order:
- Helps prevent riots, communal violence, and organized crime by enabling pre-emptive detention of potential troublemakers.
- Assists district administration in controlling large-scale law-and-order disturbances where ordinary criminal laws may be insufficient.
- Ensuring Essential Supplies and Services: Can be invoked to stop black-marketing, hoarding, smuggling, and disruptions of essential commodities/services, thereby safeguarding community welfare.
- Prevention Rather than Punishment: Unlike punitive laws, NSA is preventive in nature, aiming to avert crimes and threats before they occur, reducing chances of damage or loss of life.
- Emergency Situations Management:
- Gives governments a swift response mechanism in exceptional circumstances, when gathering evidence and conducting trials may be difficult or time-consuming.
- E.g., during communal flare-ups, mass protests turning violent, or intelligence-based terror threats.
- Empowers Both Centre and States: Enables federal and state governments (and even District Magistrates) to act quickly without waiting for lengthy central approvals.
- Protection of National Security:
- Criticism:
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: Allows deprivation of liberty without trial.
- Potential for Misuse: Used against political opponents, journalists, or peaceful protesters.
- Vague Grounds: Terms like “public order” and “national security” are broad and open to subjective interpretation.
- Judicial Scrutiny Limited: Courts generally intervene only in cases of procedural lapses, not on the merits of detention.
- Judicial Pronouncements:
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Preventive detention upheld as constitutional under Article 22.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded Article 21; preventive detention still allowed but subject to fairness and reasonableness.
- Justice Krishna Iyer in preventive detention cases Called the law a “necessary evil” in democracy.