National security and administrative law
⚖️ National Security and Administrative Law
🧾 I. Introduction
National security refers to the protection of a nation's sovereignty, territorial integrity, public order, and safety from internal or external threats.
Administrative law, on the other hand, is the branch of law that regulates the actions of government agencies, including in the areas of security, detention, censorship, surveillance, and preventive actions.
🔹 Key Conflict:
There is often a delicate balance between protecting national security and ensuring civil liberties and rule of law. Courts in India have dealt with this tension by upholding state power in cases of genuine threat while ensuring accountability where power is misused.
📜 II. Constitutional and Legal Framework
🔹 Relevant Constitutional Provisions:
Article 19: Reasonable restrictions on freedoms for national security
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty (subject to procedure established by law)
Article 22: Safeguards for preventive detention
🔹 Key Security Laws:
National Security Act, 1980 (NSA)
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958
Official Secrets Act, 1923
Public Safety Acts (state-level)
📚 III. Landmark Case Laws on National Security and Administrative Law
✅ 1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27)
📌 Facts:
Communist leader A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
He challenged the detention as a violation of Articles 19, 21, and 22.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of preventive detention.
It held that Article 21’s “procedure established by law” did not mean “due process” but any procedure prescribed by law.
Security of the state can justify curtailment of personal liberty.
🔑 Principle:
Preventive detention is constitutionally valid if done as per legal procedure.
During this time, the Court gave primacy to state interest over individual liberty.
🛑 Later overruled in Maneka Gandhi (1978) for a broader view of Article 21.
✅ 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
📌 Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded “in the interest of general public” under the Passport Act.
No reasons were given; she challenged this as a violation of her right to personal liberty and travel.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Court ruled that "procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable.
It emphasized due process in administrative actions affecting liberty.
Even in matters of national security, the state cannot act arbitrarily.
🔑 Principle:
Administrative actions, even for national security, must meet standards of fairness and natural justice.
Article 21 expanded to include procedural safeguards.
✅ 3. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976 AIR 1207) (Habeas Corpus case)
📌 Facts:
During the Emergency (1975–77), the government detained thousands under preventive detention laws.
Citizens filed habeas corpus petitions claiming unlawful detention.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that during an emergency, Article 21 is suspended, and no person has the right to approach the court for enforcement of that right.
The majority sided with state supremacy in national emergency matters.
🔑 Principle:
Courts held that rule of law could be suspended during emergencies in national interest.
🛑 Heavily criticized and later overruled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017).
✅ 4. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997 AIR 568)
📌 Facts:
PUCL challenged the tapping of telephones by intelligence agencies under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, citing violation of privacy.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of national security, but said surveillance powers must be used sparingly.
Guidelines were issued:
Home Secretary approval required
Time limits and review mechanisms
Surveillance must not become a tool for political or personal gain.
🔑 Principle:
Right to privacy is not absolute, but surveillance must be proportionate and legally justified.
Administrative safeguards are essential in national security actions.
✅ 5. Ex-Army Men’s Protection Forum v. Union of India (AFSPA Case)
📌 Facts:
Petition challenged the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) as it granted blanket immunity to armed forces in disturbed areas.
Alleged fake encounters and human rights violations in North-East and Kashmir.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the need for AFSPA in maintaining national security.
But clarified:
Immunity is not absolute
Armed forces must follow minimum force principle
Judicial review is possible in cases of abuse
🔑 Principle:
Even national security laws like AFSPA must operate within constitutional limits.
Accountability of armed forces is vital for upholding the rule of law.
📘 IV. Summary Table of Case Principles
| Case Name | Key Issue | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan (1950) | Preventive detention | Valid if under procedure established by law |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Impounding passport | Procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable under Article 21 |
| ADM Jabalpur (1976) | Emergency detention | Article 21 could be suspended during emergency (overruled later) |
| PUCL v. Union (1997) | Phone tapping and surveillance | Surveillance must follow legal safeguards and balance privacy |
| AFSPA Case (Ex-Army Men’s Forum) | Armed forces immunity | AFSPA valid, but not beyond constitutional scrutiny |
⚖️ V. Administrative Accountability in National Security
✅ What is allowed?
Detention, censorship, surveillance, AFSPA, phone tapping, etc., when necessary and legally authorized.
❌ What is not allowed?
Arbitrary arrests
No hearing or review
Indefinite detention without trial
Surveillance without oversight
Excessive use of force
RELATED Blog
0 comments