+ Follow
image by pixabay.com

India is a constitutional democracy, and freedom of speech and expression in India is guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution. Such rights involve the right to protest in a peaceful manner, criticise policies and dissent. Dissent is also a critical part of democracy, given that it enables citizens to challenge the government, seek accountability and demand change.

Nevertheless, there have been increasing doubts over recent years by legal experts, journalists, and human-rights groups about the growing application of harsh laws like the National Security Act (NSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to activists, students, and political dissenters. A point put forward by their critics is that these laws initially aimed at dealing with terrorism and challenges to national security, but in the course of their implementation, the laws are overly wide and the bail conditions are very strict, which can lead to years of detention without trial.

The issue brought up in this debate is when national security protection starts to infringe upon democratic liberties.

Understanding National Security Laws and Preventive Detention

Indian national security laws give the state the authority to hold anyone in custody in the event that the government perceives that they could be a threat to the security of the citizens. The laws that deal with preventive detention, like the National Security Act, provide the possibility of being detained without trial, and the UAPA permits the state to learn and convict actions that may be deemed unlawful or even terrorist.

Another issue that is highly debatable about these laws is the inability to secure bail. In UAPA, the court should not grant bail when it seems that there is prima facie evidence against the accused. This will mean that citizens will spend years in jail as investigations and court proceedings go on. One of the arguments most commonly presented by legal professionals is that long periods of pre-trial detention make it difficult to distinguish between punishment and investigation.

The Role of Dissent in a Democracy

In democratic societies, dissent is very important. Traditionally, most social reforms, as well as political ones in the form of civil rights movements or environmental movements, started with demonstrations and criticism of policies. Democracies exist because the citizens are able to voice their disagreement without violence.

Then again, governments are commonly challenged in preserving the social order, particularly when massive protests are at stake, which can even become violent. The authorities, hence, feel that it is important that there be strong laws in place to curb unrest, violence or terrorism. The main issue is the dilemma between security and civil liberties to ensure that legal opposition would not be interfered with by criminal behaviour.

Case Examples and Contemporary Debates

Sonam Wangchuk and Regional Autonomy Protests

Sonam Wangchuk was a Ladakh educationist, an engineer and an environmental campaigner. In 2018, he became a winner of the Ramon Magsaysay Award.

In 2025, Wangchuk headed protests that sought statehood and Sixth Schedule status on Ladakh and the Himalayan ecosystem, preserving the vulnerable tribal land, the township culture and the Himalayan ecosystem. These demonstrations were more peaceful, taking the form of hunger strikes and open protests. In response to unrest in Leh in September 2025, Wangchuk was arrested under the National Security Act, causing debate on whether preventive detention can be applied in the instance of peaceful political demands in the entire nation.

The case gained importance because the person acting against a political leader was an environmental and regional-rights activist, as it is possible to show the intersection of security laws and social and ecological movements.

The Citizenship Amendment Act Protests and Student Activists

In December 2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was enacted, which provided expedited citizenship to non-Muslim Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Afghan migrants. Critics said the exclusion of Muslims resulted in the inclusion of religion as a major issue in citizenship, which caused numerous protests in universities and cities.

In these protests, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, student activists, were arrested in 2020 and accused under UAPA in the case of conspiracy of the Delhi riots. The two have both been in jail over time, with slow proceedings at trials and investigations.

The case is highly sensitive because the Delhi riots of 2020 claimed the lives of over 50 individuals, not to mention the property that was destroyed. Nevertheless, the duration of pre-trial detention has put the legal observers in doubt about the rate of the judicial procedure and the idea of the speedy trial.

The Bhima Koregaon Case and the Death of Stan Swamy

In 2018, there was the Bhima Koregaon case, where the arrest of a few activists, lawyers, and academicians was on the grounds of their supposed association with extremist groups, uUAPA. One of them was Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal-rights activist.

In October 2020, Swamy was arrested and died in custody in July 2021, awaiting trial. His death attracted national and international coverage, and the human rights movements were alarmed at the situation in prisons, medical treatment, and the handling of the elderly.

The case also illuminated the human price of extended pre-trial detention, particularly amid more elderly and people with health issues.

Patterns and Concerns: Such Cases Observed.

In considering cases of law-safeguarding national security, there are a few broader trends that would be considered:

  • First, the process of trials of complicated conspiracy or terrorism cases usually demands years, huge amounts of evidence and several accused defendants. This is leading to pre-trial imprisonment.
  • Second, the bail terms are excessive, which implies that most suspects end up spending time in jail pending the establishment of their innocence or guilt.
  • Third, the incidents often produce disputes of civil liberties, judicial stalling, and state roles in the deliberation between security and democratic rights.

The problems associated with those structures do not concern a single case but indicate broader issues in legal and investigation procedures.

The Ongoing Debate: Security vs Democracy

The proponents of strict national-security legislation point to the severe domestic and external events facing India, such as terrorism, insurgency, and communal violence in India. In this sense, the use of preventive detention and stringent laws is regarded as a useful method in ensuring that order is upheld and citizens are not threatened.

Opponents are, however, of the view that the issue of long-term detention without trial may deter peaceful opposition as well as erode institutions of democracy. They underline the fact that democracy means not only voting but also the safeguarding of civil liberties, the rights of minorities and freedom of expression.

This debate is still alive, and civil society, courts and policymakers are still struggling to find the appropriate balance between these competing priorities.

The issue of activists and dissenters being detained under national-security laws raises complex and sensitive questions about democracy, justice, and state power. Cases such as those involving Sonam Wangchuk, the CAA protest activists, and the Bhima Koregaon accused illustrate how legal processes, public protests, and national-security concerns can intersect in ways that generate controversy.

A strong democracy must be capable of maintaining security while also safeguarding the rights of its citizens. Ensuring speedy trials, transparent investigations, and accountability in the use of preventive detention laws is essential to maintaining public trust in democratic institutions.

Ultimately, the true strength of a democracy is measured not only by its ability to control threats but also by its willingness to protect dissent, encourage dialogue, and uphold justice for all.

.     .    .

References:

Discus