"Preventive detention laws in India represent an uncomfortable tension between State security and individual liberty." In the light of the Sonam Wangchuk NSA case, critically examine the adequacy of constitutional safeguards under Article 22.

India is among the few democracies to constitutionalise peacetime preventive detention: Article 22(4)–(7) permits detention without trial, subject to safeguards [2], operationalised by the National Security Act, 1980 [1]. The Wangchuk case shows these safeguards are adequate in text but weak in enforcement.

Safeguards that work

• Structural limits: NSA allows an initial order of 3 months, extendable to a maximum of 12 months, only with Advisory Board approval headed by a High Court judge [1].
• Procedural rights: grounds of detention must be communicated within 5 days (up to 10–15 in exceptional cases), with the "earliest opportunity" to make a representation under Art. 22(5) [1][2].
• Judicial review: habeas corpus under Art. 32/226 remains live. In Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), the Court held that procedural safeguards must be "zealously watched and enforced," and cannot be diluted by the gravity of alleged activity [3].

Inadequacies exposed

• Non-application of mind: the petitioner contended that the detention order merely "copy-pasted" the police recommendation, rested on stale FIRs of 2024 and cases against unknown persons — showing the detaining authority's discretion is unreviewed at the point of decision.
• Remedy lag: Wangchuk was detained on 26 September 2025; relief came only when the Centre itself revoked the order on 14 March 2026, after nearly half the permissible period [4] — liberty lost is not restorable.
• Executive dominance: the Advisory Board sits in camera without counsel, and revocation was framed as a policy step to enable dialogue in Ladakh [5], not as vindication of rights.

Article 22's safeguards are therefore necessary but insufficient — they regulate procedure without disciplining discretion. Strengthening them requires reasoned detention orders, time-bound judicial scrutiny, and legal representation before Advisory Boards. Complemented by the political route of the High Powered Committee on Ladakh [6], the State can secure order while honouring Article 21's promise of liberty.