National Security Act of 1980

The Punjab Advocate General has verified that the National Security Act (NSA) has been invoked in Amritpal Singh’s case.
The National Security Act (NSA) was enacted by Parliament in 1980 and has been amended several times since then.
It allows the state to detain someone without an official charge or trial.
It is called when a person is taken into custody to prevent them from acting in any way prejudicial to “the security of the state” or for “maintenance of the public order”.
It is a judicial ruling issued by the Divisional Commissioner or the District Magistrate.

The NSA can be used to prevent a person from behaving in a way that is detrimental to India’s defense, relations with foreign powers, or security.
It can also be used to prevent a person from acting in any way that would jeopardize the community’s ability to maintain important supplies and services.
A person can be detained without charge for a limit of 12 months.
In exceptional circumstances, the detained individual may be held for 10 to 12 days without being informed of the charges against them.

Article 22 of the NSA provides one critical administrative safeguard.(5).
All detainees have the opportunity to submit an effective case to an independent advisory board.
The board is headed by a member who is or has been a high court judge.
The DM who issues the detention order is protected by the Act, and no prosecution or judicial action can be brought against the official who executes the orders.

The Supreme Court in previous cases had held that to avoid “misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed”.
“Meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards” must be assured.

Human rights organizations have previously claimed that the Act violates Article 22 of the Constitution and various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code that protect an arrested person’s rights.
The arrested individual is required by the CrPC to appear before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, but the NSA makes an exception.
According to some human rights organizations, officials frequently use it to silence political opponents or critics of the government.
There have been calls to repeal or amend the Act in order to avoid its abuse.
However, there is an opposing viewpoint that the Act cannot be construed as a draconian legislation because it protects the larger interests of the state and thus is likely to remain in place.

Source: https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/ISdivII_NSAAct1980_20122018.pdf