A. K. Roy, Etc v. Union of India & Anr (1982) AIR 710, (1982) SCR (2) 272

A. K. ROY, ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Whether the National Security Ordinance is constitutional or not?
Whether the preventive detention is a valid measure for regulating the liberties of an
individual?
Whether the provisions of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 are extremely
vague and can easily deprive a person of his liberty?

As long as the preventive detention law is made within the legislative power arising out of a legislative entry and is within the conditions and restrictions on that power, it cannot be construed that preventive detention is disallowed under the Indian Constitution.
Further, while care must be taken to restrict the application of the National Security Act, 1980, the statute cannot be struck down for being vague or uncertain.

This case deals with a petition made under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which challenged the validity of the National Security Act, 1980.
The Dhanbad District Magistrate issued an order for the detention of Shri A.K. Roy, a Marxist member of Parliament because he was engaging in activities that posed a danger to public order, under the National Security Act of 1980.
In the wake of these events, numerous lawmakers who disagreed with the government filed a case with the court, arguing that the president’s ability to issue ordinances undermines India’s parliamentary democracy. They raised doubts about the President’s authority to pass ordinances and wanted the extent of that authority clarified.
Along with this, several petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the National Security Ordinance and the National Security Act of 1980, which were criticized for being too broad and restrictive.

The Supreme Court held that the National Security Ordinance is constitutional. This is because, under Articles 123 and 213 of the Constitution of India, the President and the Governor are conferred with ordinance-making powers that are not restricted by any provision of the Constitution of India. Further, an ordinance like any other law must comply with Article 13(2).
The Supreme Court on the issue of Preventive Detention held that it could not invalidate the law solely because it would interfere with the liberties of individuals. The law must violate the conditions or restrictions mentioned in the entries in the Union and Concurrent list which gave it power. Hence, the Court rejected the contention that Preventive Detention was impermissible under the Indian Constitution.
On the third issue, the Supreme Court said that a narrower construction rather than the literal meaning of the expression is required. While construing laws like Preventive Detention, care must be taken to apply them to as few situations as possible.
Therefore, though the provision was held to be vague, the Supreme Court did not strike it down and it also held that while care must be taken to restrict the application of the National Security Act, the statute cannot be struck down for being vague or uncertain.