What does the govt fear, that they have armed themselves to detain people of South Goa without trial?

Did the government think it could simply get away by allowing itself to invoke sections of the National Security Act in South Goa, which basically allows it to detain people without criminal antecedents and without a trial only on the basis of apprehension? This cannot be routine and while we will come to the provisions of the NSA, we ask how did the government ever think of applying those provisions selectively only to South Goa?

And most importantly, along with NSA, we also have to look at Article 19 of Part III of the Constitution, which guards the fundamental rights, underlining that the “freedom of speech and expression, gathering peaceably without arms and forming associations or unions shall not affect the interests of the sovereignty unity and integrity of India”. The use of the NSA, according to many legal experts, are often meant to bypass the liberties given under Article 19. 

The people of Goa have the following questions:

a) Is there a threat of violation of public order only in South Goa? Does the threat exist only within the geographical limits of South Goa? Does the threat cease to exist, for example, up to Cortalim and disappears in the middle of the Zuari Bridge? It’s a ridiculous question but people are forced to ask due to a decision they feel is ridiculous.

b) Has South Goa been selectively chosen for issuing such an order because the tough opponents come from South Goa? People are increasingly asking, is it because the controversial anti-people projects are all coming in South Goa and South Goa is the seat of activism and people power? 

c) People are also apprehending and asking, ‘Does the Government wish to incarcerate the opponents by misuse of this draconic Law?’

And there are voices in the villages asking this:  “Elections are around the corner and keeping potential threats locked up until elections are over, would surely help the ruling dispensation.”

There are reasons to believe that people have every right to ask these questions. But it’s also important to further explain how the act works. 

Section 3 is the main substantive Section of the NSA, 1980, which empowers making of orders for detention of persons.

Section 3(1) of NSA Act empowers a Central or State Government to issue an order for the detention of a person with a view to preventing him from acting in manner (i) prejudicial to the defence of India, (ii) the relations of India with foreign powers or (iii) the security of India; and also for detention of a foreigner including for making arrangements for the foreigner’s expulsion from India.

WE ASK ON WHAT BASIS HAS THE GOVT BECOME SATISFIED THAT THERE IS APPREHENSION THAT THERE COULD BE PEOPLE IN SOUTH GOA WHO ARE WORKING AGAINST THE SECURITY AND DEFENCE OF INDIA OR ITS RELATIONS WITH FOREIGN POWER

Section 3 (2) of the NSA, 1980 empowers the Central or the State Government to detain any person “with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Section 3 (3) of the NSA Act, 1980, provides as under: “If any having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do…”, it may go ahead with detaining the person or persons 

Now let us judge whether the spirit of the need to empower itself to act under NASA of the Goa government was genuine. 

The opening words of Section 3(3) clearly indicate in no uncertain words that such orders can be made “if, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District 

Magistrate or Commissioner of Police. 

We need to ask what exactly is the situation prevailing or likely to prevail on the basis of material available in South Goa that these provisions have been invoked. 

And if the situation is special, then the decision cannot be routine, as the government says.

It requires satisfaction to be recorded that the person detained is acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. There is a big difference between law and order and public order. A person can commit murder and be a threat to law and order. But unless he is a threat to society the provisions of public order do not imply.

Why is NSA draconian?

– Because it can detain a person for a year without trial

– Because the justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction. Hence you do not need any evidence 

– Because preventive detention involves serious encroachment on the right of personal liberty.

Most crucially, we need to ask why this is applicable just to South Goa.

The people of Goa cannot be kept in the dark on the motives behind this decision. If the reasons are genuine, then the government should do better than just pass it off as routine. It is full of motives, and the people of Goa are asking or guessing what those motives could be and asking relevant questions.