The Goa govern ment’s plan to invoke the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, to curb habitual offend ers and ‘anti-social elements’ has sparked sharp debate across the State. Reacting to the govern ment plan, retired police officers, legal experts and activists caution that such extraordinary powers car ry risks of misuse and may not stand judicial scrutiny if misapplied.
The State government argues that the move to invoke the Act to combat crime is necessary to contain the growing men ace of history-sheeters and recurring law-and-order issues. Chief Minister Pramod Sawant has confirmed that the State has begun the process of issuing a notification to em power district authorities under NSA. The Act, enacted by Parliament, permits preventive detention of individuals likely to act in a manner prejudicial to State security or public order for up to 12 months. Goa Police has argued that repeat offenders and organised gangs have become increasingly difficult to control under regular criminal laws, making preventive detention the only effective op tion. However, critics say that Goa is following a path seen in States like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Manipur, where courts have repeatedly struck down NSA detention orders. In Uttar Pradesh alone, the Allahabad High Court quashed 94 out of 120 NSA detentions between 2018 and 2020, citing vague grounds and failure to prove that ordi nary criminal law was insufficient. Legal observers note that unless the State produces watertight cases and follows all procedural safeguards, Goa’s detention orders too may not survive judicial review. Retired superintendent of police Bossuet Da Silva has questioned the legality and necessity of invoking the NSA in Goa. “NSA is a central act, it is a law enacted by Parliament of India and only Parliament can amend it. State gov ernment can issue and modify detention orders, but this is only an administrative power, not a legislative one,” Silva said. He further warned that the Act has increasingly been used against political opponents, activists and environ mentalists, citing the case of Sonam Waghchuk in Ladakh, whose detention has been widely criticised. Goa-based activist Kashinath Shetye has also urged cau tion, warning that the law should not be misused. “Whatever may be the move of police and government, it should not be misused like Sonam Waghchuk,” he said. Instead of relying on NSA, Shetye suggested that Goa should enact its own law against organised crime, similar to Maharashtra’s MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999), which was later extended to the national capital. Behind the legal arguments lies a deeper criticism: that Goa’s reliance on NSA reflects a failure of policing. Activists allege that parts of the police force remain ‘hand-in-glove’ with organised gangs, allowing crime to flourish. Instead of strengthening investigations, prosecutions and accounta bility, critics say, the government is reaching for an extraor dinary law as a shortcut. Whether NSA will stand in Goa depends on how it is ap plied. Unless the State demonstrates compelling reasons that normal criminal law is inadequate, courts are likely to strike down detentions, as they have done elsewhere. For now, Goa stands at a crossroads — between strengthening its law-and-order machinery and resorting to a preventive detention law whose misuse could undermine civil liberties
