Imagine being locked away for almost a year without trial or conviction, your imprisonment stemming from a single order by a government official. You’re not a spy or a terrorist, but a 24-year-old law student, and your supposed crime was a campus argument.
This isn’t a dystopian movie script; it was the real-life nightmare for Aniket Thakur, a law student from Madhya Pradesh, India. His life was abruptly upended by one of India’s most stringent laws, the National Security Act (NSA)—a legislation designed to protect the nation from grave threats, yet shockingly deployed to settle a campus dispute. For nearly a year, Aniket’s freedom was unjustly curtailed. That is, until the Supreme Court of India intervened with a verdict that not only secured his liberation but fiercely condemned a flagrant abuse of power.
How It All Went Wrong: From Campus Dispute to National Security Threat
Aniket’s ordeal began on June 14, 2024, on a university campus in Betul, Madhya Pradesh. A seemingly ordinary day escalated into an argument between him and a professor. While the specifics of the dispute are less crucial, the subsequent events were life-altering. An FIR was filed, and Aniket faced serious charges, including attempt to murder. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, he surrendered to the police two days later and was placed in judicial custody.
Initially, the case appeared to be a standard criminal matter destined to proceed through the courts. However, events took a sharp and unusual turn on July 11, 2024. While Aniket was already incarcerated and demonstrably unable to pose a threat, the District Magistrate of Betul issued a preventive detention order under the National Security Act of 1980.
This single piece of paper irrevocably altered his status. Aniket was no longer merely an accused individual; he was now officially labeled a threat to national security. The detention order was bureaucratically renewed every three months, ensuring his continued confinement. Even after being granted bail in the original criminal case on January 28, 2025, his freedom remained elusive. The NSA order superseded all other legal avenues, keeping him in Bhopal Central Jail. In desperation, his family filed a habeas corpus petition, imploring the Madhya Pradesh High Court to scrutinize his imprisonment. However, the High Court dismissed the plea, labeling Aniket a “habitual offender” who threatened public peace. It was a crushing setback, with all doors seemingly closing and his detention slated to last until July 2025.
A Law Bent Out of Shape: Understanding the NSA’s Misapplication
To fully grasp the injustice of Aniket’s detention, one must understand the National Security Act itself. The NSA is a preventive detention law. Its core objective, as articulated by the Supreme Court, is “to intercept [an individual] before he does it and to prevent him from doing it,” rather than to punish a crime already committed. It empowers the government to detain individuals for up to 12 months without trial if they are deemed a threat to national security or public order.
The concept of preventive detention is inherently controversial. The Supreme Court has previously characterized it as a “serious invasion of personal liberty.” It bypasses conventional legal processes, granting immense power to the executive. Given its draconian nature, courts have consistently emphasized that its limited safeguards must be meticulously adhered to.
So, what was the state’s justification for employing this “extraordinary power” against a student? They cited nine criminal cases against Aniket, including the campus altercation, to argue he was a habitual offender jeopardizing “public order.” This is precisely where their entire case unravels. For decades, the Supreme Court has meticulously distinguished between a “law and order” problem and a “public order” problem.
To simplify: a “law and order” issue impacts specific individuals (e.g., a fight, a theft) and is handled by the regular police and courts. A “public order” issue is far more pervasive; it’s an act so widespread that it disrupts the “even tempo of the life of the community.” As Justice Bhuyan aptly observed during the hearing, “At the most, these are all issues of law and order. ‘Public order’ is something bigger.”
The state’s argument simply did not hold up. Aniket’s legal counsel demonstrated that of the eight previous cases, he had been acquitted in five, paid a minor fine in one, and was already on bail for the remaining two. This profile hardly aligns with someone on the verge of destabilizing an entire community. The campus incident was a quintessential “law and order” situation, not a crisis warranting the invocation of the NSA.
The Supreme Court Steps In: A Decisive Judgment Against Overreach
Following the defeat in the High Court, Aniket’s final recourse was the Supreme Court of India (SC/SLP No. 9285/2025). When the case came before Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K. Vinod Chandran, the facts were presented, and the court’s reaction was swift and unequivocally condemnatory. They didn’t merely identify flaws in the state’s argument; they systematically dismantled it.
Firstly, the Court identified significant procedural irregularities. The law explicitly mandates that any appeal from a detainee must be forwarded to the State Government. In Aniket’s case, the District Collector made the decision unilaterally—a direct violation of established rules. This was not a mere technicality; it constituted a failure to adhere to a critical safeguard designed to prevent wrongful detentions.
Secondly, the court thoroughly debunked the rationale behind the detention order itself. They highlighted the absurd logic of issuing a preventive order for an individual who was already in jail. How could Aniket possibly disturb public order from behind bars? The state offered no plausible explanation. The court concluded that the essential “live and proximate link” between the reason for detention and the act of detention had been severed.
The bench unequivocally determined that the state’s actions fell far short of the rigorous standards demanded by the NSA. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict, employing language that left no room for ambiguity. It declared the detention order “wholly untenable”—a powerful legal term signifying that something is completely indefensible and devoid of any logical or legal basis.
The court explicitly stated that the reasons for his detention did not satisfy the requirements of the National Security Act. It ordered Aniket’s immediate release from Bhopal Central Jail. After nearly a year of unjust confinement, the prison doors were finally opened by the highest court in the land.
Conclusion: A Safeguard Against Arbitrary Power
Aniket Thakur’s ordeal transcends the story of a single student; it serves as a potent and timely reminder of the inherent dangers lurking within preventive detention laws. For years, critics have warned that the NSA’s broad and often vague wording renders it susceptible to misuse against political opponents, activists, or any dissenting voices. It fosters a system where mere suspicion, rather than concrete proof, can lead to a citizen’s imprisonment, thereby eroding the fundamental principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
This Supreme Court judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional rights. It underscores the sanctity of personal liberty and reiterates that any law impinging upon it must be applied with extreme circumspection. The court’s clear delineation between “law and order” and “public order” establishes a vital check on governmental authority, preventing the disproportionate use of a powerful legal instrument. It sends an unequivocal message to authorities nationwide: the NSA is not a shortcut around the regular justice system. It is a formidable tool reserved for genuine, formidable threats, and a campus scuffle simply does not qualify.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case vividly illustrates the indispensable role of an independent judiciary in a democratic framework. It is the courts that serve as a crucial bulwark against state overreach, ensuring that the delicate balance between security and individual liberty does not devolve into tyranny. Aniket Thakur tragically lost a year of his life to a flawed order. Yet, in securing his freedom, the Supreme Court championed a liberty that is the birthright of every Indian citizen: the right to be protected from the arbitrary power of the state.
Case Title: Annu @ Aniket through his father as next friend Krupal Singh Thakur vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court dealt with this case, setting aside his preventive detention order. The SC/SLP No. 9285/2025 Supreme Court order was June 27, 2025.