The two fundamental liberties guaranteed to every individual by the Indian constitution are the right to life and the right to personal liberty. These rights are frequently regarded as being unaffected by coercion or limitations. Preventive detention rights have long been in place in our nation, but the National Security Ordinance, passed under Indira Gandhi’s administration, misused this legal provision. which left the individual in jail for months without access to legal representation. This law is frequently acknowledged as being oppressive and impairing people’s personal freedoms.
It is sometimes likened to the British Rowlatt Act, which restricted people’s basic rights. The national security act, which is frequently criticized and seen as arbitrary, was upheld by this ruling.
ak roy vs union of india Case Facts
- This case concerns a petition under article 32 of indian constitution that contested the National Security Act of 1980’s legality.
- It concerns the arrest of A.K. Roy, a parliamentarian at the time.
- On suspicion of engaging in activities harmful to public order and national security, he was taken into custody under the National Security Ordinance of 1980, which was eventually abolished and replaced by the national security act of 1980.
ak roy vs union of india Issues
- What are the boundaries and scope of the President’s authority to enact ordinances? Does that make sense or not?
- Is it legal for preventative detention laws to violate an individual’s right to personal liberty?
- How does the unenforced portion of the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 impact the structure of advisory boards, and what is the legitimacy of this provision?
- Is there any legal uncertainty regarding Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of the national security act of 1980?
- Is the process outlined and adhered to by the national security act deemed reasonable?
Contentions by the Petitioners:
The petitioner’s attorney, Shri R.K. Garg, contended that the Ordinance is not a law. He offered the following grounds in favour of his claim:
- The President has executive, not legislative, authority when it comes to issuing ordinances. He used Blackstone’s assertion that there cannot be public liberty if the authority to make laws and the responsibility for upholding them are held by the same body to bolster his position.
- He cited the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which established the supremacy of the basic right protected by article 21 of indian constitution and found that the executive branch’s ordinance-making authority could not stifle it.
- Only those legal issues on which there are no existing legal requirements should be the subject of ordinances. It shouldn’t interfere with laws that the legislature has previously passed.
- He also argued that it should not be regarded as a law since doing so would go against the fundamental tenet of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
- It was also contended that the rules pertaining to preventative detention violate the Indian Constitution and restrict an individual’s fundamental rights.
- It was argued that Section 3 of the 44th Amendment Act modified Article 22(4) of the Constitution, which was violated by the national security act, 1980. A statute passed by the legislature cannot be overridden by another law. As a result, the national security act is seen negatively by the law.
- The other points focused on the uniform 12-month imprisonment time that was applied to all cases, irrespective of the unique facts and circumstances of each individual case. Furthermore, the individual in custody was not required to be informed of the reasons for his detention, and he was not even granted opportunity to see his attorney or to be cross-examined. Because of all these factors, the Act is excessively restrictive and ought to be overturned.
ak roy vs union of india Judgment
- The National Security Ordinance, which became an Act in 1980, was affirmed as lawful by the five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court.
- It was determined to be reasonable since laws pertaining to preventative detention are essential for upholding public order, promoting social security among persons, and guaranteeing state security.
- The essential rights outlined in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution are not violated by them. It was decided they are not ambiguous.
- The rules pertaining to preventative detention are legal and do not infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. As a result, the national security act of 1980 is reasonable rather than ambiguous.
- The 44th Amendment Act’s Section 3 is not extra vires because, like any other Act or Statute, it must be implemented when it comes into force.
In terms of ordinances and preventive detention, the 1982 case A. K. Roy v. Union of India is a seminal ruling under the constitution. This ruling maintained the National Security Act’s legality. The ruling further clarified the essence of ordinance-making authority and how it differs from legislative authority. Judge Chandrachud made an admirable effort to respond to each and every argument made by the petitioners.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
