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.
  • 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.
  • 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.