Agitators hold posters and candle during the protest of the arrest of the climate activist Sonama Wangchuk in Mantar Mantar, Nový Delhi on Friday, September 26, 2025. Photo Credit: PTI
A key legal problem by detaining the climate activist Sonama Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA) is whether the authorities applied their mind to the appropriate material to achieve the “necessary subjective satisfaction” that its activities are for public order or state security.
Mr. Wangchuk is reportedly on hunger strikes for statehood and status of the sixth schedule for the territory of the Ladakhu Union. September 26 After the police action against violent protests in Leh, he was detained under the provisions of the NSA, which left four civilians dead.
The Supreme Court was distinguished between violations of “law and regulation” and violations of the “public regulation”. This concerns events that affect the community or the public in general.
“The public order is an even pace of the life of a community that will take the country as a whole or even a designated location,” the court noted in its reported judgment 2024 in Nezdathi vs. TELANGANA condition.
“Law and Order” has a wider ambition. The struggle between two drunks in a public place is an act in contradiction with law and order. The “public order” has a narrower radius – the alleged act had to have an impact on the ground as a whole or location.
“The difference between the areas of” law and order “and” public order “is the title and scope of the reach of the Company Act,” the Top Court said in its decision in July 2025 in the case of anne @ aniket vs. India.
The NSA seizes the center and states to retain individuals to prevent them from acting “prejudice to the defense of India, relations with foreign powers, security security or maintaining public order or basic supplies”.
In a number of decisions, however, the Court explained that the retention body should “justify the order to detain from the material that existed before it, and the process of considering the material should be reflected in the order of detention in expressing his satisfaction”.
Set instructions for authorities using their subjective satisfaction within the NSA, including with regard to “only relevant and vital material” to achieve the necessary subjective satisfaction; The implicit obligation to apply their mind to relevant and closest matters and avoid those who are irrelevant and remote-judges can examine whether the subjective satisfaction of the Office has been based on objective facts or affected by any boom, malevolent or irrelevant or not.
The Top Court has constantly ruled that “the preventive detention of a person is a drastic measure and the preventive detention order results in an attack of the personal freedom of man”. Therefore, the retention body should exercise the “hard law” withdrawal with maximum caution.
The Court emphasized that the inability of the state machine “solve the situation of the law and order should not be an excuse to induce jurisdiction of preventive detention”. The court ruled that even the usual crime could not be the only foundation of preventive detention.
The courts are skeptical about the use of what is called “theory of broken windows”, criminological theory, which has a significant impact on prosecution, decisions, and especially for preventive measures, including NSA. The idea behind the theory is that “if the window in the building is broken and left unjustified, all windows would soon be broken”, ie the detention of one person to send a report on the individual to individuals and other likely perpetrators.
Published – 28 September 2025 03:28
