Key Arguments

1. Preventive Detention under NSA
   ○ The National Security Act (NSA), 1980 empowers Centre and states to detain individuals to prevent acts “prejudicial to defence, foreign relations, national security, or public order.”
   ○ Continues the legacy of colonial-era preventive detention laws, granting wide powers to District Magistrates and Police Commissioners.

2. Scope and Duration
   ○ Preventive detention can last up to 12 months, extendable in special cases.
   ○ Detainees can be held without formal charges or trial, raising misuse concerns.

3. Safeguards and Rights
   ○ Detainees can make representations; Advisory Boards of judges review detention.
   ○ However, legal representation before Advisory Boards is not allowed—restricting defence rights.

4. Instances of Use
   ○ Applied in varied contexts: Maoist activities, cow slaughter, “love jihad,” and political activism.
   ○ Examples: Dr. Kafeel Khan, Akhil Gogoi—where courts flagged insufficient grounds.

5. Controversy Around Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention
   ○ Detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk for seeking Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule renewed debate.
   ○ Raises concern that NSA is being used against civil society voices, not only against genuine security threats.

Author’s Stance

● Critical of NSA’s wide scope and potential misuse.
● Frames NSA as a colonial hangover used more for political control than pure national security.
● Leans towards defending civil liberties while acknowledging its security rationale.

Possible Biases

● Civil Liberties Bias – Emphasises misuse cases, downplays genuine threat prevention.
● Selective Examples – Focus on misuse against activists (e.g., Sonam Wangchuk, Kafeel Khan).
● Critical Framing – Law portrayed primarily as a blunt political instrument.

Pros

● Provides a pre-emptive tool for national security.
● Useful in managing crises like communal violence, terrorism, insurgency.
● Advisory Boards ensure some level of judicial scrutiny.

Cons

● Detention without trial undermines democratic freedoms and Article 21.
● Frequent misuse against activists, students, and protestors.
● Lack of transparency—no legal counsel before Advisory Boards.
● Judicial criticism: many NSA detentions struck down as arbitrary.

Policy Implications

1. Balance of Liberty & Security (GS Paper 2 – Governance):
○ Reassess preventive detention’s scope in a democratic framework.
○ Narrow definitions of “public order” and “security of India” to curb misuse.

2. Judicial Safeguards (GS Paper 2 – Constitution & Rights):
○ Allow legal representation before Advisory Boards.
○ Strengthen oversight to reduce arbitrary detentions.

3. Legislative Reform (GS Paper 3 – Internal Security):
○ Parliamentary review of NSA’s continuing relevance.
○ Restrict preventive detention to extraordinary threats only.

Real-World Impact

● Chilling effect on dissent – activists, journalists, students fear state repression.
● Erosion of trust – misuse damages credibility of law enforcement.
● International perception – criticism over India’s democratic freedoms.
● Security benefit – remains potent in terrorism/insurgency contexts (e.g., J&K, Northeast).

Relevance to UPSC GS Papers

● GS Paper II: Governance, civil liberties, constitutional safeguards.
● GS Paper III: Internal security challenges, preventive detention framework.
● GS Paper IV: Ethics – balancing state power with protection of rights.

Balanced Summary

Preventive detention under NSA remains one of India’s most controversial legal tools. While designed for safeguarding security and public order, its broad scope, colonial legacy, and misuse against dissenters raise grave civil liberty concerns. Courts too have struck down arbitrary detentions, making NSA a contested law in India’s democracy.

Future Perspectives

● Revisit preventive detention laws to ensure alignment with constitutional values.
● Restrict NSA to extraordinary national security threats, not routine political dissent.
● Strengthen judicial oversight and ensure transparency in detentions.
● Adopt a balanced approach—protecting security without undermining fundamental freedoms.