Petition filed for production of Wangchuk
Dr. Angmo has requested the apex court to direct authorities to produce her husband in court. She stated that since his detention in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, on September 26, there has been no information about the grounds of his detention or his health condition. The petition highlights concerns over the procedural safeguards guaranteed under the Constitution regarding preventive detention.
NSA provisions and guidelines
Section 3 of the NSA allows preventive detention if a person’s activities are considered prejudicial to public order, national security, India’s relations with foreign powers, or essential supplies and services. The law mandates that detention orders must be issued based on “vital and relevant material” demonstrating that the person’s actions are harmful to public interest. Authorities are required to provide reasoned detention orders to the individual or their family.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to ensure that preventive detention under the NSA is not misused. Courts have emphasised that subjective satisfaction of authorities must be based on relevant and proximate material, avoiding any consideration of irrelevant factors, malice, or caprice.
Key legal issues
The central question before the Supreme Court is whether Wangchuk’s actions genuinely prejudiced public order. Judicial review will examine if the authorities exercised their duty to consider only relevant facts while depriving him of his fundamental right to personal liberty. The court will also assess whether the decision was influenced by objective evidence or arbitrary factors.
Drastic nature of preventive detention
The Supreme Court has consistently underscored that preventive detention is a drastic measure, directly impacting personal liberty. Detaining a person without sufficient and relevant justification is a severe infringement of constitutional rights, warranting strict scrutiny by the judiciary.
The case has been marked for priority hearing and is expected to be listed at the top of the board when the two-judge Bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, reconvenes after the Dasara vacation. Observers expect the court to examine the legality of Wangchuk’s detention in the context of public order and fundamental rights.
Conclusion
As the hearing approaches, the case has drawn attention to the delicate balance between national security and individual liberties. The Supreme Court’s decision will be closely watched, particularly for its implications on preventive detention and the scope of judicial oversight in safeguarding personal freedom. NSA preventive detention India, Delhi Supreme Court cases, climate activist legal update, habeas corpus plea India