Why NSA is in News Recently
- Current context:
- Recent detentions of individuals in Jammu & Kashmir, UP, and other states linked to protests or “security threats.”
- Cases involving public figures or activists spark debates on civil liberties and misuse.
- Courts and media scrutinise whether detentions under NSA meet constitutional and legal safeguards.
- Links to Articles 14, 19, 22, preventive detention jurisprudence, and internal security governance.
Relevance:
- GS-2 (Polity & Governance): Preventive detention, civil liberties, internal security, constitutional safeguards (Arts. 14, 19, 21, 22).
- GS-3 (Internal Security): Law & order, state powers, public safety, security infrastructure.
Historical Context and Genesis
- Colonial origins: Preventive detention in India dates to British rule, used to suppress dissent during wars and political unrest.
- Post-Independence legislation:
- Preventive Detention Act, 1950: First post-Independence preventive detention law.
- Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971: Widely misused during Emergency (1975–77).
- MISA repeal & NSA enactment: MISA repealed in 1978; NSA enacted in 1980 (formally operational in 1988) with procedural safeguards.
- Intent: Enable government to detain individuals preventively to maintain internal security, public order, and essential supplies.
Scope and Powers under NSA
- Authorities empowered:
- Central & State governments.
- District Magistrates & Police Commissioners (when authorised).
- Preventive vs. punitive:
- Preventive detention stops potential threats before they materialize.
- No formal trial or charges needed at detention.
- Grounds for detention:
- Prejudicial to defence of India.
- Affecting relations with foreign powers.
- Threat to public order or essential supplies.
Procedural Safeguards
- Communication: Grounds communicated within 5 days, extendable to 15 days.
- Representation: Detainee can submit representation to the government.
- Advisory Board:
- Composed of High Court judges.
- Reviews cases within 3 weeks.
- Can order release if “no sufficient cause” found.
- Duration: Maximum 12 months, subject to earlier revocation.
Limitations
- No legal representation before the Advisory Board.
- Government can withhold facts citing “public interest.”
- Leaves wide discretion, raising civil liberty concerns.
Legal Remedies
- Representation to government.
- Advisory Board review within 3 weeks.
- Judicial recourse:
- High Court (Article 226), Supreme Court (Article 32) for legality of detention.
- Revocation: Government can release detainee if threat deemed unnecessary.
Key Cases & Usage
- Recent high-profile detentions:
- 2023: Amritpal Singh (Sikh preacher) – Assam detention.
- 2017–18: Chandrashekhar Azad “Ravan” – Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court intervened.
- 2020: Anti-CAA protesters in Uttar Pradesh.
- Other uses:
- Love jihad, cow slaughter, communal violence.
- Black-marketing kerosene (2012 – Supreme Court struck down).
Controversies
- Broad, vague definitions allow misuse.
- Civil liberties concerns: detention without trial or open evidence.
- Judicial scrutiny shows government discretion often unchecked.
- Debate:
- Proponents: Necessary for national security & public order.
- Critics: Blunt instrument that may target dissent.
