"Supreme Court Quashes NSA Detention Based on Police Confession"
Preventive Detention
detention to prevent anticipated harm, without trial or proof of guilt, unlike punitive detention after conviction.
Habeas Corpus
a writ directing authorities to produce a detained person before court and justify the detention.
Preventive detention sits inside the same constitutional provision that protects personal liberty. Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty. Article 22 lays down the procedure for arrest and detention. An ordinary arrested person gets the protections of Article 22(1) and (2): being told the grounds of arrest, consulting a lawyer, and being produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Article 22(3) removes these protections for anyone detained under a preventive detention law. Only the lesser safeguards of Article 22(5) remain: the right to know the grounds of detention and to make a representation against them. Parliament used this constitutional space to pass laws such as the National Security Act, 1980.
The NSA lets a detaining authority act on its own subjective satisfaction that a person threatens security, public order, or essential supplies, without a trial or a finding of guilt. This makes confessions important. Indian evidence law has long treated a confession made to a police officer with suspicion, since custody creates pressure to speak. The old Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 barred such confessions from being used against an accused. This rule continues today in Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, with only a narrow exception for the part of a statement that leads to discovering a fact. Some special laws broke from this rule. The repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 allowed a confession before a senior police officer to be used as evidence, but this was a deliberate exception, not the general position. The NSA carries no such exception.
Section 3(2) of the NSA allows a District Magistrate, a Commissioner of Police, or the State or Central Government to order detention without trial for up to 12 months on these grounds. Because the legal standard is the authority's subjective satisfaction rather than courtroom proof, judicial review does not reweigh evidence like an appeal. Courts instead check whether that satisfaction was formed on material that is relevant, disclosed to the detenu, and capable of being challenged. An Advisory Board periodically examines whether there is enough cause to continue the detention. …
Consider the following statements:
1.According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.
2.The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention.
3.According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Match List I (Constitutional provision) with List II (its effect) and select the correct answer using the code given below: List I:
A.Article 22(1) and (2)
B.Article 22(3)
C.Article 22(4)
D.Article 22(5). List II:
1.Requires an Advisory Board's opinion before detention beyond a prescribed period
2.Withdraws certain safeguards for persons held under preventive detention laws
3.Guarantees the right to be informed of grounds of detention and to make a representation
4.Guarantees grounds of arrest, legal counsel, and production before a magistrate within 24 hours
Consider the following statements regarding preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980: 1. The Act permits detention without trial for a maximum period of twelve months. 2. Article 22(3) of the Constitution extends the safeguards of Article 22(1) and (2), such as the right to legal counsel, to persons held under preventive detention. 3. A detention order under the Act can be issued only on the ground of a threat to the security of the State, not for reasons related to public order or essential supplies. How many of the above statements are correct?
Consider the following statements regarding confessions under Indian law: 1. A confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against the accused in a trial. 2. A confession made while in police custody becomes admissible if it is recorded in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 3. The part of a statement made to police that leads to the discovery of a fact may be proved, even if the rest of the confession is inadmissible. How many of the above statements are correct?
With reference to judicial review of preventive detention orders in India, consider the following statements: 1. Courts examine whether the grounds of detention disclosed to the detenu were relevant and capable of being contested. 2. Courts re-examine the evidence as an appellate court would, to decide whether the detenu is actually guilty. 3. A detention order can be quashed if it relies on material that was never supplied to the detenu. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following authorities can order a person's preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980? 1. A District Magistrate, if empowered in this regard 2. A Commissioner of Police, if empowered in this regard 3. The Central Government, acting on its own. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account