JOIN USThe Allahabad High Court’s order striking down 94 of the 110 detentions made under the National Security Act (NSA) by the UP government shows how wrongly this draconian law has been used by the state administration. These detentions were made between January 2018 and December 2020 across 32 districts of the state. It is not just the court’s decision to quash most of the cases but also the observations made by the judges that confirm the unreasonable exercise of power by the government. The court quashed the NSA orders in 30 of 41 cow slaughter cases, all 20 of 20 communal incident cases, and 20 of 25 others. Last October, the court had expressed concern over the frequent misuse of the law against cow slaughter, stating that it was being wielded against innocent people.
Ordering the release of the detained persons, the court said that a large number of the First Information Reports (FIR) had much the same content, showing that they were part of a cut-and-paste job, and there was "no application of mind’’ on the part of the district magistrates who issued the orders. The court also said that the accused had been denied the due process of law, and in many cases the detained persons did not get the opportunity to represent themselves effectively while challenging the NSA, and could not secure bail. The court also found many discrepancies and loopholes in the cases. The same reasons and circumstances to invoke the NSA were found in many disparate cases, and identical descriptions and similar venues were seen in many cow slaughter cases. From the court’s orders and its observations, it is clear that the cases were registered according to some plan and most of them were false cases with no evidence to support them.
The NSA enables governments to detain citizens on grounds ranging from acting prejudicial to the defence of India or security of state to maintenance of public order and of supplies and services. Many of these are vague grounds and those who are accused of the charges need not initially be even told about them, and can be detained for up to 12 months without charges and trial. They are denied the normal rights of citizens, and the checks in the form of advisory boards do not work. The court did well to ensure that those whose basic rights were violated got the justice that they deserved. But how do they get back the months or years they lost because of the prejudicial and illegal actions of the state? The court as an institution held itself up, but it has exposed other institutions which have failed in their duties to protect the rights of citizens.