How does the Supreme Court balance national security concerns with individual rights in preventive detention cases?

In India, preventive detention is used by the government to detain individuals without trial to prevent threats to national security, public order, or law and order. However, this power can conflict with the fundamental rights of individuals, especially the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court plays a key role in balancing these competing interests.

• Judicial Review: The Supreme Court ensures that preventive detention laws and orders comply with constitutional safeguards. It reviews whether detention follows due process and is not arbitrary.
• Disclosure of Grounds: Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that the detained person be informed of the grounds of detention 'as soon as may be' to enable them to make a representation against the order. The Court insists that this right is respected, unless disclosure would harm public interest or national security.
• Exceptions for National Security: If the government claims that sharing full details of the detention grounds could endanger national security, the Court examines whether this claim is justified. It may allow non-disclosure only if strictly necessary and proportionate to the threat.
• Procedural Safeguards: The Court checks that all procedural requirements under the law, such as review by advisory boards and timely communication of grounds, are followed to prevent misuse of preventive detention powers.
• Case-by-Case Basis: The judiciary often deals with such cases individually, weighing the seriousness of the security threat against the need for transparency and the detainee's right to defend themselves.
• Recent Example: In cases like Sonam Wangchuk’s, the Supreme Court has asked the government to consider sharing the detention grounds with close family members (such as the spouse), balancing the need for secrecy with the right to representation and transparency.