Team Code:

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

IN THE MATTERS OF:

Mr. Ravi Sing ...PETITIONER

V.

Union of India …RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGE

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Index of Authorities
2. Statement of Jurisdiction
3. Statement of Facts
4. Issues Raised
5. Summary of Arguments
6. Arguments Advanced
7. Prayer

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes and Constitution Provisions

• Constitution of India
o Article 14: Equality before the law
o Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of speech and
expression
o Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions on freedom
of speech
o Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
o Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies
 • National Security (Amendment) Act, 2024
o Section 4A: Expanded definition of national
security
o Section 6B: Preventive detention without trial
o Section 10: Warrantless surveillance and data
interception
o Section 15: Limitation on judicial review

Judicial Precedents

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017)

10 SCC 1
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625
• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC
225
• Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2016) 7 SCC 353
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC
1295
International Legal Instruments

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 19 and

21
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), Article 19
• Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom
of Expression, and Access to Information (1995)

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking
remedies for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 and for adjudication on the
unconstitutionality of specific provisions of the National
Security (Amendment) Act, 2024.

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Enactment of the NSAA: In 2024, the Parliament of

India enacted the National Security (Amendment) Act,
introducing sweeping changes to existing laws to
address contemporary security challenges, including
 cyber terrorism, economic espionage, and organized
crime.
2. Key Provisions of the NSAA:
a. Section 4A: Expands the definition of "acts against
national security" to include vaguely defined
activities threatening "economic stability" and
"critical information infrastructure."
b. Section 6B: Allows preventive detention for up to
18 months without trial.
c. Section 10: Permits warrantless surveillance and
interception of personal data.
d. Section 15: Restricts judicial review to the
Supreme Court alone, excluding all other courts.
3. Concerns Raised by the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Singh, a
human rights activist, argues that the Act
disproportionately infringes upon fundamental rights,
lacks adequate safeguards, and is incompatible with
the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. Opposition by the Respondent: The Union of India
defends the Act as necessary to address emerging
national security threats, asserting that the restrictions
imposed are reasonable and constitutionally
permissible.
4. ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the provisions of the NSAA, particularly

Sections 4A, 6B, 10, and 15, violate fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the NSAA are
constitutionally valid as reasonable restrictions under
Articles 19(2) and 21.
3. Whether the powers granted to the government under
the NSAA are arbitrary, excessive, and
disproportionate.
4. Whether the limitation on judicial review under Section
15 violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
5. Whether the NSAA aligns with India’s obligations under
international law and best practices.
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21: The impugned

provisions curtail the right to freedom of speech and
personal liberty by permitting preventive detention,
warrantless surveillance, and arbitrary restrictions
without procedural safeguards.
2. Arbitrary and Disproportionate Powers: The Act
contravenes the principles of proportionality and rule of
law by granting unchecked executive powers that are
not narrowly tailored to achieve legitimate objectives.
3. Chilling Effect on Free Speech: Section 4A’s vague
and overbroad definition of "acts against national
security" has a deterrent effect on legitimate speech
and dissent, undermining the democratic process.
4. Judicial Review and Basic Structure Doctrine:
Section 15’s limitation on judicial review is
unconstitutional as it infringes upon the judiciary’s role
as a guardian of fundamental rights and disrupts the
separation of powers.
5. Incompatibility with International Standards: The
NSAA deviates from international norms that mandate
proportionality and necessity in national security laws.
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(a)

and 21

1. Preventive Detention (Section 6B):

a. Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be
deprived of life or liberty except by procedure
established by law. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, the Court emphasized that such procedure
must be just, fair, and reasonable.
b. Section 6B permits detention without trial for up to
18 months based solely on suspicion, which fails
to satisfy the procedural due process requirements
under Article 21.
2. Warrantless Surveillance (Section 10):
a. The right to privacy, as recognized in Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India, is a fundamental
right under Article 21.
b. Section 10’s allowance for warrantless data
interception bypasses judicial oversight, rendering
it unconstitutional and prone to misuse.
3. Expanded Definitions in Section 4A:
a. The phrases "economic stability" and "critical
information infrastructure" are inherently vague,
violating the principle of certainty in law, as
 articulated in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh.

B. Arbitrary and Disproportionate Nature of NSAA

Provisions

1. Arbitrariness of Expanded Definitions under Section

4A:
a. The vague and broad terms such as "economic
stability" lack precision, leaving the scope of
national security open to arbitrary interpretation.
b. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court struck
down similar ambiguous provisions in the context
of free speech.
2. Proportionality Test:
a. The doctrine of proportionality, as applied in
Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, requires that any restriction on rights
must be necessary and narrowly tailored to
achieve a legitimate goal.
b. The NSAA imposes sweeping restrictions without
adequate safeguards, thereby failing this test.
C. Chilling Effect on Free Speech and its Impact on
Democratic Dissent

1. Overbroad Definition of National Security Threats:

a. Section 4A’s expansive scope creates fear and
uncertainty among citizens, deterring them from
exercising their right to dissent and criticize the
government.
b. A chilling effect on speech undermines democratic
principles, as emphasized in Shreya Singhal v.
Union of India.
2. Impact on Activism and Civil Society:
a. By criminalizing vague acts, the law stifles
legitimate activism, adversely affecting
democracy.

D. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(a)

and 21

1. Section 6B and Preventive Detention Without Trial

Historical Perspective on Preventive Detention in India

Preventive detention laws, though upheld in India as a

matter of necessity in certain circumstances, have always
been viewed with caution by the judiciary. The framers of the
Constitution were acutely aware of the dangers posed by
such laws, leading to the inclusion of Article 22, which
outlines safeguards against arbitrary detention. However,
Section 6B of the NSAA ignores the spirit of Article 22 by
permitting preventive detention for up to 18 months without
providing meaningful safeguards.

• Judicial Caution Against Overreach:

• In A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court

observed that preventive detention, though necessary
in certain extreme cases, must be exercised with
utmost care. Section 6B’s prolonged detention period
exceeds reasonable limits, undermining the principles
of liberty and fairness.

• Psychological and Social Costs of Detention:

Detention without trial not only violates an individual’s

rights but also imposes severe psychological and social
harm. The stigma attached to detention under the guise of
national security can irreparably damage the reputation and
livelihood of individuals, as recognized in Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration (1980).
Comparative Jurisprudence on Preventive Detention

India’s preventive detention laws, including Section 6B of

the NSAA, starkly contrast with international best practices:

• United Kingdom: Under the Terrorism Prevention and

Investigation Measures Act, 2011 (TPIM), individuals
suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities
can be detained or subjected to restrictions only after
judicial approval and for a maximum period of two
years. Judicial oversight ensures accountability.
• United States: Even under the contentious Patriot Act,
detention of suspects without trial is subject to strict
procedural safeguards, including access to counsel
and regular judicial review.
The NSAA, by contrast, lacks these safeguards, rendering it
incompatible with global democratic standards.

2. Section 10 and the Right to Privacy

Deep Dive into Privacy as a Fundamental Right

The right to privacy is not merely an extension of personal

liberty under Article 21 but a cornerstone of human dignity
and autonomy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of
India (2017), the nine-judge bench explicitly held that
privacy includes informational privacy, decisional
autonomy, and freedom from unwarranted surveillance.

• Violation of Decisional Autonomy:

Section 10’s warrantless surveillance powers create a

chilling effect that impacts individuals’ ability to make free
decisions in personal and professional life. By monitoring
communications and personal data, the government
creates an atmosphere of fear and mistrust, eroding
citizens' confidence in their autonomy.

• Data Security and Abuse Concerns:

With increasing instances of data leaks and misuse, the

unchecked powers under Section 10 heighten the risk of
surveillance abuse. In Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India
(2011), the Supreme Court highlighted the need to protect
individuals’ financial and informational privacy. Section 10,
however, overrides these concerns without justification.

Surveillance and International Standards

Globally, surveillance laws are subject to stringent checks

to prevent misuse:

• European Union: The General Data Protection

Regulation (GDPR) mandates strict oversight of
 personal data usage, even for national security
purposes. Mass surveillance, as seen in the case of Big
Brother Watch v. United Kingdom (2018) before the
European Court of Human Rights, was deemed
unlawful without adequate safeguards.
• United States: In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the
U.S. Supreme Court limited warrantless collection of
personal data, emphasizing the need to balance
security with privacy.
Section 10 of the NSAA, lacking judicial or independent
oversight, stands in stark violation of these international
norms.

3. Section 4A and Vagueness in Definitions

Impact of Vague Legislation on Fundamental Rights

Vague laws like Section 4A, which broadly define acts

against national security, fail the constitutional test of clarity
and precision. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the
Court struck down Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act for being overly broad, as it led to arbitrary
enforcement and suppression of free speech.

• Economic Stability as a Broad Threat:

The inclusion of “threats to economic stability” within the
ambit of national security blurs the line between criminal
and economic law. For instance, peaceful protests against
government economic policies could be labeled as
“threats” under this provision, chilling dissent and protest,
which are integral to Article 19(1)(a).

Doctrine of Overbreadth

The doctrine of overbreadth, established in State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Baldeo Prasad (1961), posits that laws that
criminalize constitutionally protected conduct are
unconstitutional. Section 4A’s inclusion of vague terms like
“disrupting critical information infrastructure” could
criminalize legitimate business operations, protests, or even
academic research into cybersecurity vulnerabilities.D.
Arbitrary and Disproportionate Nature of NSAA
Provisions

1. Arbitrary Use of Government Powers

The NSAA concentrates extensive powers in the hands of the

executive without adequate safeguards, violating the
principle of the rule of law.

• Unchecked Executive Powers:

 Section 6B allows preventive detention, Section 10
authorizes surveillance, and Section 15 restricts judicial
review—forming a trifecta of unchecked executive authority.
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court
highlighted the need to prevent executive overreach to
preserve the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Violation of the Proportionality Doctrine:

In Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(2016), the Court underscored the need for any restriction
on fundamental rights to be narrowly tailored and
proportionate. The NSAA imposes broad and sweeping
restrictions that go beyond what is necessary to achieve its
objectives, failing the test of proportionality.

2. Lack of Procedural Safeguards

Procedural safeguards are integral to preventing misuse of

laws. The NSAA lacks meaningful checks, such as
independent review mechanisms, judicial oversight, and
accountability provisions.

• Comparison with Preventive Detention Laws:

Unlike the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) or
the Preventive Detention Act, which required judicial review
within a defined time frame, the NSAA offers no equivalent
safeguard. This absence violates the procedural fairness
principles laid down in Maneka Gandhi.

E. Chilling Effect on Free Speech and its Impact on

Democratic Dissent

1. Suppression of Dissent

Section 4A’s vague language, combined with the

surveillance powers under Section 10, creates a chilling
effect on free speech. Citizens may refrain from expressing
dissenting opinions out of fear of reprisal.

• Stifling Civil Society:

Human rights defenders, journalists, and activists often
critique governmental policies. In Shreya Singhal, the Court
recognized the importance of dissent in a democracy.
Criminalizing dissent in the name of national security
undermines this vital democratic function.

2. Precedent from the Emergency Era

The Court’s decision in ADM Jabalpur is a stark reminder of

the consequences of curbing civil liberties. The NSAA, by
allowing broad detention powers, surveillance, and
restricted judicial review, risks recreating similar conditions
where dissent is silenced, and civil liberties are eroded.
F. Unconstitutionality of Judicial Review Limitation under
Section 15

1. Violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda

Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), identifies judicial review as
an essential feature of the Constitution. Section 15, by
restricting judicial review to the Supreme Court, undermines
this principle.

• Overburdening the Supreme Court:

Restricting judicial review exclusively to the Supreme Court
denies access to justice for individuals in distant regions.
This violates Article 32, which is intended to be a remedy of
last resort.

2. Separation of Powers

The exclusion of High Courts from judicial review breaches

the separation of powers, a foundational principle enshrined
in the Constitution. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
(1997), the Court emphasized that judicial review by High
Courts is integral to the constitutional framework.
G. Comparative Analysis with International Standards

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

India is a signatory to the ICCPR, which mandates that any

restriction on rights must be necessary, proportionate, and
prescribed by law. The NSAA’s provisions fail to meet these
standards, particularly in the context of surveillance and
preventive detention.

2. Johannesburg Principles

The Johannesburg Principles (1995) state that national

security laws should not be used to suppress peaceful
dissent or restrict freedoms disproportionately. Section 4A
and Section 6B violate these principles by creating an
environment of fear and self-censorship.

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the Petitioner

 Team Code:

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

IN THE MATTERS OF:

Mr. Ravi Sing ...PETITIONER

V.

Union of India …RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGE

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... 4

CASES REFERRED............................................................................................................4
STATUTES REFFERED.....................................................................................................4
BOOKS AND ARTICLES .................................................................................................. 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ 5

SUMMARY OF FACTS ................................................................................................................. 6

ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................... 10

Constitutionality of the NSAA under Articles 19 and 21 .................................................... 10

Reasonableness of Restrictions on Free Speech and Personal Liberty ................................ 11
Justification of Powers Granted under the NSAA as Non-Arbitrary and Proportionate ....... 12
Constitutionality of Limiting Judicial Review under Section 15 ......................................... 13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 15

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

2
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes and Constitutional Provisions

• Constitution of India
o Article 14: Equality before the law; ensures that every
individual is treated equally and guarantees fairness, a
cornerstone of democratic justice. It underpins the
legitimacy of any restrictive law that seeks to balance
rights against larger public interests, such as national
security.
o Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of speech and
expression; guarantees citizens the liberty to express
themselves freely, a crucial pillar of a democratic society.
However, the scope of this right is not absolute and may
be subject to reasonable restrictions as laid out under
Article 19(2).
o Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions on freedom of
speech; allows the government to impose limitations on
free speech in certain instances, such as for the
protection of national security or public order.
o Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty; protects
individuals' personal freedom, including their right to not
be deprived of life or liberty except according to
procedure established by law. This includes protections
against arbitrary detention and surveillance.
o Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies; grants
individuals the ability to directly approach the Supreme
Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights.
 • National Security (Amendment) Act, 2024 (NSAA)
o Section 4A: Expands the definition of acts undermining
national security to incorporate modern threats such as
cyber-attacks and economic sabotage, recognizing the
evolving nature of security challenges in the digital age.
o Section 6B: Authorizes preventive detention for up to 18
months, which is deemed necessary to avert impending
threats to national security. Preventive detention is
allowed under the Constitution in specific, well-defined
circumstances.
o Section 10: Grants the government the authority to
intercept communications and carry out surveillance
without a warrant in cases of immediate national security
risks, addressing the urgency of protecting national
security from rapidly evolving threats.
o Section 15: Restricts judicial review to the Supreme
Court for cases involving the NSAA, ensuring that cases
are resolved quickly and uniformly, preventing delays that
may jeopardize national security.

Judicial Precedents

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27: A landmark

case where the Supreme Court interpreted the scope of
preventive detention, underscoring that the state has authority
to detain individuals to protect national security under defined
conditions.
 • ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521:
Addressed the issue of the suspension of fundamental rights
during emergencies, confirming that the state may take
extreme measures to protect national security during
extraordinary circumstances.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625:
Established the principle of the basic structure doctrine, which
protects certain fundamental features of the Constitution from
being amended, ensuring that the integrity of core principles
such as justice and equality is upheld.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10
SCC 1: This judgment affirmed the right to privacy as a
fundamental right, recognizing that it is subject to limitations
under the law in the interests of national security and public
safety.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1: Struck down
a provision that prohibited online content, reinforcing that free
speech cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and must be subjected
to proportionality tests for justifiable restrictions.

International Legal Instruments

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 19:

States that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, but also recognizes that restrictions may be
imposed for the protection of national security.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), Article 19: Similar to the UDHR, this article
acknowledges that free speech may be restricted in the
 interest of national security and public order, providing a
global standard for balancing rights and security.
• Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of
Expression, and Access to Information (1995): These
principles offer guidelines on restricting freedom of expression
for national security purposes, emphasizing that restrictions
must be narrowly tailored and the least intrusive possible.

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This Article
empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for
the enforcement of their fundamental rights, in this case, to contest
the claims made by the Petitioner regarding the constitutional
validity of the National Security (Amendment) Act, 2024 (NSAA). The
Petitioner argues that the NSAA violates fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution and undermines its basic structure.
This Court has the authority to adjudicate these matters and to
determine whether the NSAA aligns with constitutional principles
and India’s international obligations.

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background of the NSAA:

 The National Security (Amendment) Act, 2024 (NSAA), was enacted
by the Union of India in response to the increasing threats to
national security posed by cyber terrorism, economic espionage,
and organized crime. In light of these evolving challenges, the Act
introduces measures to protect national security and public order,
focusing on preventive detention, surveillance, and judicial review
mechanisms.

Key Features of the NSAA:

• Section 4A: Expands the definition of actions detrimental to

national security to include modern threats such as cyber-
attacks, economic espionage, and the sabotage of critical
infrastructure, ensuring that the law addresses the full
spectrum of contemporary security risks.
• Section 6B: Authorizes preventive detention for up to 18
months without trial to prevent threats to national security,
with periodic reviews to ensure that it does not become
arbitrary or excessive.
• Section 10: Grants authorities the power to conduct
surveillance and intercept communications without a warrant
in cases where there is an imminent threat to national security,
allowing for swift, proactive measures.
• Section 15: Restricts judicial review of the NSAA to the
Supreme Court, ensuring that cases related to national
security are handled with the requisite speed and uniformity,
avoiding delays that could compromise security efforts.
Government’s Position:

The Union of India defends the NSAA as a necessary and

proportionate response to the increasing and evolving threats to
national security. The government emphasizes that the Act includes
adequate safeguards to prevent misuse, such as periodic reviews of
preventive detention, oversight of surveillance measures, and strict
limits on judicial review to expedite security-related cases. The
government asserts that the Act aims to balance national security
needs with the protection of fundamental rights, ensuring that
individual liberties are not unduly infringed upon.

4. ISSUES RAISED

1. Constitutional Validity of NSAA under Articles 19(2) and 21:

Whether the provisions of the NSAA, which impose restrictions
on fundamental rights, are constitutionally valid under Articles
19(2) and 21.
2. Proportionality and Necessity of NSAA Provisions: Whether
the measures introduced by the NSAA, such as preventive
detention and warrantless surveillance, are proportionate and
necessary to address contemporary security challenges.
3. Basic Structure Doctrine and Judicial Review: Whether the
centralization of judicial review in Section 15 of the NSAA
violates the basic structure doctrine by concentrating power in
a manner that undermines the independence of the judiciary.
 4. Compliance with International Norms: Whether the NSAA
aligns with international obligations under instruments like the
ICCPR, ensuring that restrictions on rights are narrowly
tailored and proportionate to legitimate national security
concerns.

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

• Reasonable Restrictions on Rights: The Respondent argues

that the provisions of the NSAA fall within the permissible
restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 21, aimed at maintaining
national security and public order. The restrictions are neither
arbitrary nor excessive and are necessary for safeguarding the
integrity of the nation.
• Proportionality and Necessity of Measures: The Respondent
asserts that the provisions of the NSAA are narrowly tailored to
address specific, modern security threats such as cyber-
terrorism and economic espionage, with sufficient safeguards
to prevent misuse, such as periodic reviews of preventive
detention.
• Judicial Review Mechanism: The Respondent defends the
centralization of judicial review in Section 15 as a mechanism
to ensure uniformity and speed in resolving national security
cases. It argues that this does not violate the basic structure
doctrine but rather enhances judicial efficiency.
• International Compliance: The Respondent argues that the
NSAA complies with India’s international obligations under the
ICCPR and other international human rights norms, which
 permit restrictions on rights for national security purposes,
provided they are narrowly defined and proportional.

6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. Validity of Restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 21

1. Preventive Detention (Section 6B):

a. In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the Court upheld
the notion that in extraordinary circumstances, such as
threats to national security, the state has the authority to
restrict individual liberties temporarily. Preventive
detention is therefore consistent with Article 22, which
allows such measures under defined conditions to
safeguard national security.
b. Section 6B’s preventive detention provision complies
with constitutional safeguards, such as periodic reviews,
ensuring that the detention is not indefinite or without
justification.
c. The A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case affirmed that
preventive detention, when executed in accordance with
the procedure prescribed by law, is within constitutional
limits. Section 6B's provision for preventive detention up
to 18 months, combined with periodic reviews, ensures
that it is not an arbitrary infringement on individual
liberty. This provision strikes a necessary balance
between protecting individual rights and addressing
urgent threats to national security.
 d. The preventive detention provision aligns with the
principle established in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of
India, where the Court emphasized that individual
liberties may be restricted when required for the broader
public interest, as long as these restrictions do not
infringe upon the core values of the Constitution.

2. Warrantless Surveillance (Section 10):

a. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the
Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a
fundamental right but clarified that privacy rights could
be subjected to reasonable restrictions when necessary
for national security.
b. Section 10, which authorizes warrantless surveillance in
cases of imminent national security threats, aligns with
this principle. It ensures that there are no procedural
delays in preventing or addressing threats that could
otherwise jeopardize public safety. While privacy is a
fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be curtailed
in the interests of national security, particularly when
there is an immediate and identifiable threat.
c. The Respondent submits that Section 10's provision for
warrantless surveillance is not an overreach but a
necessary step to mitigate the risks posed by fast-
evolving security threats, such as cyber-attacks and
terrorism, where delay in response can lead to
catastrophic consequences.
B. Proportionality and Necessity of NSAA Provisions

1. Expanded Definition (Section 4A):

a. Section 4A of the NSAA broadens the scope of threats to
national security to include modern dangers such as
cyber terrorism, economic sabotage, and the
compromise of critical infrastructure. This extension is
necessary to address the rapidly changing landscape of
security threats, which were not anticipated when earlier
national security laws were enacted.
b. The inclusion of economic espionage and cyber-attacks
is especially significant in the current age of globalization
and digital interconnectedness, where threats often
transcend national borders and can have far-reaching
consequences. By ensuring that these new forms of
threats are incorporated into the definition of national
security, Section 4A helps to safeguard the nation from
evolving global risks.
c. The Respondent asserts that this expanded definition is
not overly broad but specifically targets actions that have
a direct and detrimental impact on national security,
without extending to ordinary acts of dissent or protest.
2. Preventive Detention (Section 6B):
a. Preventive detention, when used in the context of
national security, serves as a critical tool to counter
imminent threats. The Respondent submits that the
NSAA's provisions are proportionate because the
detention period is limited to 18 months, which is within
 the bounds of reasonableness for addressing urgent and
dangerous situations.
b. The provision allows for regular reviews of the detainee’s
case, ensuring that the detention does not become
punitive or indefinite. This review mechanism prevents
the potential abuse of power and ensures that the
detention remains justifiable, with oversight at multiple
levels of government. In this regard, Section 6B ensures
that the state does not wield unchecked power, but
instead is held accountable for its actions.

C. Judicial Review and Basic Structure Doctrine

1. Centralization under Section 15:

a. The Respondent submits that the concentration of
judicial review in the Supreme Court under Section 15 is
not only justified but necessary to ensure consistency
and efficiency in handling matters of national security.
b. National security cases often involve complex and urgent
matters that require swift resolution. By centralizing
judicial review, the NSAA ensures that security-related
cases are adjudicated uniformly across the country,
avoiding inconsistent rulings from lower courts that could
undermine national security objectives.
c. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court also
promotes judicial expediency, preventing unnecessary
delays that could be detrimental in the context of time-
sensitive security threats. The Respondent argues that
this does not violate the basic structure doctrine, as it is a
 procedural safeguard that enhances the functioning of
the judiciary in cases related to national security. The
basic structure doctrine, as outlined in Minerva Mills
Ltd., preserves the Constitution’s core principles but
does not prohibit reasonable procedural changes that
improve efficiency without undermining democratic
values.
2. Impact on Judicial Independence:
a. The Respondent further argues that centralization of
judicial review does not undermine the independence of
the judiciary. The Supreme Court remains the ultimate
guardian of fundamental rights and constitutional
principles, and its jurisdiction in national security matters
is rooted in its role as the highest court of the land.
b. The establishment of exclusive jurisdiction for national
security-related matters is a measure intended to
safeguard national interests without compromising the
integrity or independence of the judiciary. The
Respondent submits that judicial review remains robust,
even within the exclusive framework established by
Section 15.

D. Alignment with International Norms

1. Proportional Restrictions on Free Expression (ICCPR and

UDHR):
a. The Respondent asserts that the NSAA is fully in line with
India’s international obligations under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which
 permits restrictions on free expression for reasons of
national security, public order, or public health.
Specifically, ICCPR Article 19 allows for the restriction of
free speech where it is necessary for protecting national
security, a principle that resonates with the provisions of
the NSAA.
b. Furthermore, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) also acknowledges that freedom
of speech can be curtailed in the interest of national
security. This international framework supports the view
that restrictions under the NSAA, including preventive
detention, surveillance, and expanded definitions of
threats, are consistent with global standards on
balancing rights and security needs.
c. The Johannesburg Principles further endorse the idea
that national security measures must meet a standard of
proportionality, ensuring that restrictions on freedoms
are narrowly tailored to address specific and direct
threats. The Respondent submits that the provisions of
the NSAA adhere to this standard, as they target actions
that pose a clear and present danger to national security,
while minimizing the impact on individual freedoms.
7. PRAYER

In light of the comprehensive submissions made above, the

Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court:

1. Declare the National Security (Amendment) Act, 2024, as

constitutionally valid, recognizing the necessity of the
provisions contained within the Act to address contemporary
security challenges while respecting constitutional
safeguards.
2. Uphold the provisions of Sections 4A, 6B, 10, and 15 of the
NSAA as necessary and proportionate measures to safeguard
national security, ensuring that they comply with
constitutional principles, international norms, and the
overarching need to maintain public order.
3. Dismiss the Petitioner’s claims challenging the validity of the
NSAA, affirming that the Act appropriately balances individual
rights with the imperative of national security in a manner
consistent with constitutional principles and international
obligations.

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the Respondent