Why in news?

• A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Given the divergent views, the case has been referred to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench for final adjudication.
• Inserted in 2018, the provision requires prior government approval before police can initiate enquiries or investigations against public servants for decisions taken in official duties.
• The judgment underscores a long-standing tension in administrative law — striking a balance between empowering agencies to act decisively against corruption and protecting honest civil servants from undue harassment.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Addressing Policy Paralysis in Governance
• Section 17A as a Shield for the Corrupt
• Divergent Readings of Supreme Court Precedents

Addressing Policy Paralysis in Governance

• Section 17A was introduced to prevent “policy paralysis” by protecting civil servants from investigative harassment over bona fide decisions.
• The concern was that fear of probes could deter officials from taking bold, necessary policy decisions.
• Protecting the ‘Steel Frame’ of India
  • Justice K V Viswanathan underscored the need for such protection, invoking Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s description of civil servants as the “Steel Frame of India.”
  • He warned that without safeguards, honest officers would adopt a risk-averse “play-it-safe” approach, ultimately harming national interests.
• The Constitutional Flaw in Section 17A
  • Justice Viswanathan acknowledged a key defect in the provision: the authority to grant or deny approval for investigations rests with the government itself, undermining the independence essential for corruption inquiries.
  • To preserve the provision’s constitutionality, Justice Viswanathan adopted a “constructive approach.”
  • He upheld the requirement of prior approval but ruled that decision-making must not be confined to the government alone.
  • Instead, complaints must be independently screened by the Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in the States.
• How the Proposed Mechanism Works?
  • Under this framework, when police seek approval to investigate, the government must forward the request to the Lokpal.
  • The Lokpal’s Inquiry Wing conducts a preliminary assessment, and if a prima facie case is found, the government is obliged to grant approval.
  • This ensures independent scrutiny of corruption allegations while retaining necessary protection for honest public servants, thereby balancing administrative efficiency with accountability.

Section 17A as a Shield for the Corrupt

• Justice B V Nagarathna held that Section 17A is contrary to the very objective of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• She argued that by blocking enquiries at the threshold, the provision effectively protects corrupt officials rather than safeguarding honest ones.
• Conflict of Interest in Government Approval
  • She rejected the assumption that the government can act as an impartial authority in granting approval for investigations.
  • She highlighted the risks of policy bias and conflict of interest, especially where allegations involve senior officials or ministers, making impartial decision-making by subordinate officers unrealistic.
• Violation of the Right to Equality
  • She found Section 17A violative of Article 14, as it grants protection only to officials involved in “recommendations or decisions.”
  • This, she said, unfairly discriminates against lower-level officials who perform clerical functions or record file notings and are denied similar safeguards.
• Rejection of Judicial Reconstruction
  • Justice Nagarathna strongly disagreed with Justice Viswanathan’s effort to save the provision by routing approvals through the Lokpal.
  • She termed this “judicial legislation,” asserting that courts cannot rewrite statutes by replacing “Government” with “Lokpal.”
• ‘Cart Before the Horse’ Argument
  • She dismissed the government’s claim that Section 17A acts as a gatekeeper against frivolous complaints.
  • Without a preliminary police enquiry, she argued, it is impossible to assess whether allegations are genuine or baseless.
• A Tool of Control Over Officials
  • Justice Nagarathna warned that Section 17A enables the government to wield a “Damocles’ sword” over public servants, pressuring them to conform to political interests under the threat of investigation approvals being selectively granted.

Divergent Readings of Supreme Court Precedents

• A key disagreement in the split verdict centred on how to interpret two landmark rulings of the Supreme Court of India: Vineet Narain v. Union of India and Subramanian Swamy v. CBI.
• Both judgments had struck down prior approval requirements that restricted corruption investigations.
• Justice Nagarathna: Section 17A as a Revival of Invalid Law
  • Justice B V Nagarathna viewed Section 17A as “old wine in a new bottle,” arguing that it resurrects protections earlier invalidated.
  • She relied on Subramanian Swamy Case, where the Court held that any fetter on even a preliminary enquiry undermines the investigation process.
  • In her view, Section 17A creates the same barrier—now extended to all public servants—and therefore suffers from the same constitutional infirmity.
• Justice Viswanathan: Distinguishing the Earlier Rulings
  • Justice K V Viswanathan took a different approach, distinguishing Section 17A from the provisions struck down earlier.
  • He noted that Subramanian Swamy invalidated Section 6A of the DSPE Act mainly because it discriminated between officers based on rank, violating equality under the Constitution.
  • Since Section 17A applies uniformly to all public servants, he argued that this defect does not arise.
  • Justice Viswanathan further reasoned that the core principle of Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy was preventing executive control over investigations.
  • By routing prior approval through an independent body like the Lokpal, he argued, Section 17A addresses this concern and meets constitutional requirements.
• The Crux of the Disagreement
  • Thus, while Justice Nagarathna saw Section 17A as fundamentally incompatible with binding precedent, Justice Viswanathan believed that institutional redesign—through independent screening—was sufficient to reconcile the provision with earlier Supreme Court rulings.

Why in news?

Futuristic space and marine biotechnology explores extreme environments such as deep oceans and outer space to generate new biological knowledge, materials, and manufacturing processes.

Marine biotechnology studies microorganisms, algae, and other marine life to develop bioactive compounds, enzymes, biomaterials, food ingredients, and biostimulants adapted to harsh conditions.

Space biotechnology focuses on understanding how microbes, plants, and human biological systems respond to microgravity and radiation, expanding possibilities for innovation in science and industry.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Why Marine and Space Biotechnology Matters for India?
• India’s Current Position in Marine and Space Biotechnology
• Global Advances in Marine and Space Biotechnology
• The Way Forward for Marine and Space Biotechnology

Why Marine and Space Biotechnology Matters for India?

• India’s extensive coastline of over 11,000 km and a vast Exclusive Economic Zone of more than two million sq km provide access to rich marine biodiversity, yet its global share in marine outputs remains low, revealing large untapped potential.
• Investing in marine biomanufacturing can create new sources of food, energy, chemicals, and biomaterials while easing pressure on land, freshwater, and agriculture.
• At the same time, space biotechnology is vital for India’s long-term space ambitions, supporting safe food production, human health management, and biological manufacturing in extreme environments.
• Together, these fields can position India as a global leader in future-ready biomanufacturing.

India’s Current Position in Marine and Space Biotechnology

• India’s marine biomass production, including seaweed, remains modest at around 70,000 tonnes annually, forcing continued imports of seaweed-derived products like agar, carrageenan, and alginates for food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and medical use.
• Policy initiatives under the Blue Economy agenda, the Deep Ocean Mission, and BioE3 aim to build integrated marine biomanufacturing linking cultivation, extraction, and downstream applications.
• A limited set of private players such as Sea6 Energy and ClimateCrew, alongside research bodies like ICAR–Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, are exploring scale-up pathways.
• In space biotechnology, Indian Space Research Organisation is advancing microgravity biology research on microbes, algae, and life-support systems, though private-sector participation remains limited due to the sector’s nascent stage.

Global Advances in Marine and Space Biotechnology

• The European Union is investing heavily in marine bioprospecting, algae-based biomaterials, and bioactive compounds, supported by shared research infrastructure such as the European Marine Biological Resource Centre.
• China has rapidly scaled seaweed aquaculture and marine bioprocessing to strengthen its bioeconomy.
• In space biotechnology, the United States leads through NASA and the International Space Station, where experiments on microbes, protein crystallisation, stem cells, and life-support systems advance drug discovery, regenerative medicine, and long-duration human space missions.

The Way Forward for Marine and Space Biotechnology

• Marine and space biotechnology remain largely untapped frontiers where early movers can secure long-term strategic and technological advantages.
• The main risk is slow, fragmented research and development.
• A dedicated roadmap with clear timelines and outcomes is essential to focus resources, coordinate efforts, and accelerate progress.

Context:

• India’s clean energy transition is increasingly dependent on imported critical minerals and rare earths, making external supply chains vital, especially as China tightens export controls.
• Like other countries, India is seeking to diversify mineral trade partnerships, encourage responsible production, and build standards-based markets.
• To address both immediate needs and long-term resilience, India has adopted a two-pronged approach—securing overseas access while strengthening domestic capabilities.
• Over the past five years, New Delhi has pursued numerous bilateral and multilateral partnerships alongside domestic policy reforms, raising questions about their effectiveness and the need for recalibration.

Uneven Progress Across Critical Mineral Partnerships

• India’s critical mineral partnerships have delivered mixed outcomes, with some countries emerging as more reliable and strategically aligned than others.
• Australia: A Reliable Anchor Partner
  • Australia stands out due to political stability, large mineral reserves, and strategic clarity.
  • Cooperation has progressed through long-term supply talks, joint research, and investments.
  • Under the 2022 India–Australia Critical Minerals Investment Partnership, five lithium and cobalt projects were identified for potential investment.
• Japan: A Model for Long-Term Resilience
  • Japan offers a template for resilience built on diversification, stockpiling, recycling, and sustained R&D—lessons drawn after China restricted rare earth exports a decade ago.
  • Beyond ties with Indian Rare Earths Limited, cooperation now includes joint extraction, processing, and stockpiling, bilaterally and in third countries.
• Africa: Opportunity with a Long-Term Lens
  • African nations present strong opportunities, combining mineral abundance with growing expectations of local value addition.
  • India’s agreements with Namibia (lithium, rare earths, uranium) and asset talks in Zambia (copper, cobalt) signal intent.
  • Success will depend on a long-term industrial approach to compete with more coordinated players.
• United States: Strategic Potential, Policy Volatility
  • Despite “friend-shoring” rhetoric, cooperation with the United States has struggled to move beyond dialogue.
  • Tariffs, shifting trade rules, and Inflation Reduction Act incentives add uncertainty.
  • Initiatives like TRUST and the Strategic Minerals Recovery Initiative offer frameworks, but policy volatility limits reliability.
• European Union: Standards-Driven Synergy
  • The European Union demonstrates how regulation and industrial strategy can align through the Critical Raw Materials Act and the European Battery Alliance.
  • Progress for India requires alignment with EU transparency, lifecycle, and environmental standards.
• West Asia: Midstream Potential, Limited Depth
  • United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are investing in battery materials, refining, and green hydrogen, acquiring mining stakes globally.
  • The region could serve India as a midstream processing hub, though institutional frameworks remain thin.
• Russia: A Hedge, Not a Foundation
  • Russia holds substantial reserves and has longstanding scientific ties with India.
  • However, sanctions, financing constraints, and logistical risks limit reliability—making Russia a supplementary hedge rather than a core pillar.

Latin America: Emerging Opportunities and Intense Competition

• Latin America is emerging as a new frontier for India’s critical minerals strategy, with growing engagement in Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Brazil.
• These countries are increasingly central to global copper, nickel, and rare-earth supply chains.
• Indian public and private firms have begun investing in the region, including a ₹200 crore exploration and development agreement signed by Khanij Bidesh India Limited with Argentina.
• However, competition is intense and engagement remains nascent, underscoring the need for value-chain partnerships and local processing beyond extraction.

Canada: Potential Partner Amid Diplomatic Reset

• With diplomatic ties restored, Canada re-emerges as a promising minerals partner for India.
• Canada’s reserves of nickel, cobalt, copper, and rare earths, alongside a recently signed trilateral agreement with Australia and India, position it well for cooperation.
• Sustained progress, however, will depend on political stability and consistent bilateral engagement.

From Ore Access to Value-Chain Resilience

• Across regions, a clear lesson emerges: securing mineral ore alone is insufficient. The real vulnerability lies in processing.
• Without domestic refining and midstream capacity, India remains exposed to supply-chain disruptions.
• Building Integrated, End-to-End Partnerships
  • India needs integrated partnerships across the value chain:
    • Upstream ore extraction: Africa, Australia, Canada, Latin America
    • Midstream processing of the mineral ores: West Asia (the Gulf) and Japan
    • Downstream technologies creation: European Union and United States (batteries, recycling)
    • Diversification hedge: Russia
  • Technology, innovation, and on-ground project execution matter more than announcements.
• Strategic Focus Before Expansion
  • While cooperation with additional partners like South Korea and Indonesia is valuable, India must first sharpen a coherent strategy for existing partnerships to ensure results.
• Strengthening the Domestic Foundation
  • None of these efforts will succeed without a robust domestic framework for responsible mining.
  • Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards, transparency, and regulatory certainty are increasingly decisive in international partnerships.

The Way Forward

• India has built an extensive network of critical mineral partnerships. The next step is to deepen what works, recalibrate what doesn’t, and anchor the strategy in processing capacity, technology leadership, and long-term certainty.

Why in the News?

• The University Grants Commission has notified revised regulations to address caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions, introducing stricter compliance requirements and enforcement mechanisms.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Caste Discrimination (Background, UGC Regulations, Inclusion of OBCs, Institutional Mechanisms, Significance & Way Forward)

Background: Caste Discrimination in Higher Education

• Caste-based discrimination has remained a persistent concern within India’s higher education system, particularly affecting students from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
• Issues such as social exclusion, academic marginalisation, biased evaluation, and lack of grievance redressal mechanisms have been highlighted by multiple committees, court judgments, and civil society reports.
• In response, the UGC had first introduced anti-discrimination regulations in 2012, mandating equal opportunity cells in universities.
• However, implementation gaps, weak monitoring, and changing socio-academic realities necessitated a comprehensive revision of the regulatory framework.

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity) Regulations, 2026

• The newly notified University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 update and replace the earlier framework.
• These regulations aim to institutionalise equity, strengthen grievance redressal, and ensure accountability at all levels of higher education governance.
• A key shift in the 2026 regulations is the clearer articulation of institutional responsibility, placing direct accountability on the heads of institutions for ensuring compliance.

Expanded Definition of Discrimination

• The regulations define caste-based discrimination as unfair or biased treatment against members of SCs, STs, and OBCs solely on the basis of caste or tribe.
• The scope of “discrimination” has been broadened to include both explicit and implicit acts that impair equality in education or violate human dignity.
• In addition, the definition also recognises discrimination on intersecting grounds such as religion, race, gender, place of birth, and disability.
• This expanded framing aligns the regulations with constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
• However, unlike the 2012 rules, the new regulations do not explicitly list specific manifestations of discrimination during admissions or academic processes, which has drawn some academic critique.

Inclusion of OBCs and Removal of Penal Clause

• One of the most significant changes in the final regulations is the inclusion of OBCs within the ambit of caste-based discrimination.
• The earlier draft had excluded OBCs, triggering widespread criticism from scholars, student groups, and social justice advocates.
• The UGC has also dropped the proposed provision to penalise “false complaints” of discrimination.
• This clause, present in the draft version, was criticised for potentially discouraging genuine complainants and creating a chilling effect on reporting. Its removal strengthens access to justice and grievance redressal.

Institutional Mechanisms: Equity Committees and EOCs

• The regulations mandate the establishment of Equal Opportunity Centres (EOCs) in every higher education institution. These centres are tasked with promoting equity, inclusion, and social justice on campuses.
• Under each EOC, an Equity Committee must be constituted, chaired by the head of the institution and comprising representatives from SCs, STs, OBCs, women, and persons with disabilities.
• Equity Committees are required to meet at least twice a year, while EOCs must submit bi-annual reports on their functioning.
• Institutions must also submit annual reports to the UGC, enabling periodic review and oversight.

Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanism

• To ensure effective implementation, the UGC will establish a national-level monitoring committee comprising representatives from statutory councils, commissions, and civil society.
• This body will review compliance, examine cases of discrimination, and recommend preventive measures.
• Non-compliance carries serious consequences. Institutions may be debarred from UGC schemes, prohibited from offering degree or online programmes, or even removed from the UGC’s list of recognised higher education institutions.
• This marks a shift from advisory regulation to enforceable accountability.

Significance and Way Forward

• The 2026 regulations represent a stronger institutional response to caste-based discrimination in higher education.
• By expanding coverage, strengthening monitoring, and removing deterrents to complaint filing, the UGC has reinforced the principles of social justice and inclusion.
• However, effective implementation will depend on institutional capacity, sensitivity training, transparent grievance handling, and regular audits. For lasting impact, regulatory reform must be accompanied by cultural change within campuses.

Context:

• The Kashi–Tamil Sangamam, a flagship cultural initiative under the spirit of “Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat”, highlights India’s civilisational continuity, cultural unity and people-to-people bonds.
• The Somnath Swabhiman Parv (1026–2026), marking 1,000 years since the first attack on Somnath, puts the Sangamam within India’s broader historical and cultural consciousness.

Background - Idea of Sangamam:

• Sangam in Indian ethos symbolises confluence, integration and unity amid diversity.
• The Kashi–Tamil Sangamam represents the living unity of India’s traditions while respecting regional uniqueness.
• Kashi (Varanasi), a civilisational and spiritual anchor for millennia, where people from all over have come in search of knowledge, meaning and Moksha, is a natural venue for such cultural integration.

Civilisational Linkages Between Kashi and Tamil Nadu:

• Spiritual and cultural bonds - Kashi–Rameswaram axis:
  • Baba Vishwanath (Kashi) and Rameswaram (Tamil Nadu) are key spiritual centres. Tenkasi in Tamil Nadu is known as Dakshin Kashi.
  • Saint Kumaraguruparar Swamigal strengthened spiritual and institutional ties between Kashi and Tamil Nadu.
• Intellectual and nationalist connections: Mahakavi Subramania Bharati found in Kashi a space for intellectual growth, spiritual awakening, and deepening nationalism and vision of a united India.

Evolution of the Kashi–Tamil Sangamam:

• First edition (2022): Participation of scholars, artisans, students, farmers, writers and professionals, who travelled to Kashi, Prayagraj and Ayodhya.
• Second edition (2023): Greater use of technology to overcome language barriers. The aim was to introduce innovative formats and deeper engagement, so that the Sangamam continued to evolve while remaining rooted in its core spirit.
• Third edition: The focus was on Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), expanding academic discussions, exhibitions and cultural interactions.
• Fourth edition (2025):
  • Theme: Tamil Karkalam (Learn Tamil)
  • Teachers from Tamil Nadu taught Tamil to students in Kashi, emphasising linguistic integration and cultural learning.

Key Highlights of the Fourth Edition:

• Translation: Of Tholkappiyam (ancient Tamil literary classic) into 4 Indian languages, and 6 foreign languages.
• Sage Agastya Vehicle Expedition (SAVE): From Tenkasi to Kashi, it included activities like eye camps, health awareness, digital literacy camps. Tribute to King Adi Veera Parakrama Pandiyan, symbol of cultural oneness
• Other highlights: Academic sessions at Banaras Hindu University (BHU), cultural exhibitions at Namo Ghat, and high participation of Yuva Shakti (youth).

Role of Institutions and Governance:

• Indian Railways operated special trains for participants.
• Warm hospitality by people of Kashi and Uttar Pradesh.
• Strong administrative coordination ensuring a seamless experience.
• Valedictory function held at Rameswaram, attended by the Vice President of India, highlighting spiritual unity and national integration.

Challenges and Way Ahead:

• Sustaining long-term engagement: Linking cultural exchanges with education, tourism and local economies.
• Ensuring deeper grassroots participation: Institutionalising Sangamam-type platforms across regions.
• Avoiding symbolic tokenism: Greater academic, youth and digital integration.
• Bridging linguistic and regional gaps: Using technology for inclusive participation. Expanding translations and documentation of classical texts.

Conclusion:

• The Kashi–Tamil Sangamam exemplifies India’s living civilisational unity, where diversity is not erased but harmonised.
• By fostering cultural understanding, academic exchange and youth participation, it strengthens the foundations of national integration.
• Alongside India’s shared festivals like Pongal, Sankranti, Magh Bihu and Uttarayan, such initiatives reinforce harmony, collective heritage and the timeless idea of One India, Many Traditions.

Context

• The Supreme Court of India’s January 5, 2026 order in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case, which granted bail to five accused but denied it to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, has renewed debate on the interaction between criminal procedure, personal liberty, and state power.
• The controversy arises from the prolonged detention of seven students and activists arrested during the 2020 protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), despite the absence of a completed trial.

Right to Speedy Trial and Reason Behind Delayed Trial

• Right to Speedy Trial
  • More than five years have elapsed since the arrests, with the trial still pending commencement.
  • Indian constitutional jurisprudence locates the right to speedy trial within Article 21, making procedural delay a direct infringement of liberty.
  • When pre-trial incarceration approaches half a decade, detention becomes indistinguishable from punishment and undermines the presumption of innocence.
  • The Supreme Court has previously stated that if the state cannot ensure trial within a reasonable period, its opposition to bail lacks legitimacy.
  • In this case, the Court concluded that delay justified bail for five accused but not for Khalid and Imam.
  • This distinction rested on the assertion that the latter two allegedly conceptualised the disturbances, placing them on a different footing.
  • Yet such differentiation relies on unproven allegations and grants excessive weight to prosecutorial assertion.
  • Liberty cannot be contingent upon the gravity of accusation alone, for this would empower the state to curtail freedom simply by escalating charges.
• Reason Behind the Delay
  • The Court also observed that delay was partly attributable to the accused, but the pace of proceedings remains fundamentally under judicial control.
  • Judges can refuse adjournments and streamline hearings. The presence of hundreds of witnesses suggests the trial is unlikely to conclude swiftly, creating the risk of prolonged incarceration without adjudication.
  • The Court’s suggestion that bail may be reconsidered after another year implies that five-and-a-half years have not yet crossed a constitutional threshold, raising the spectre of detention spanning a decade or more without verdict.

Terrorism, the UAPA, and Expansive Interpretation

• The order also raises structural concerns regarding the interpretation of Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines terrorism.
• Alongside explicit elements involving weapons or violence, the statute includes the residual phrase by any other means.
• Criminal law traditionally requires narrow construction of ambiguous provisions to safeguard individuals against state overreach.
• Instead, the Court adopted a broad reading that could encompass non-violent protest actions such as chakka jams, vastly expanding the statute’s scope.
• Such interpretation vests wide discretion in the executive, enabling it to classify forms of civil disobedience under anti-terror law rather than under ordinary criminal provisions.
• The broader the definition, the greater the risk of suppressing dissent and discouraging democratic mobilisation.
• Moreover, the interpretation directly affects bail due to Section 43D (5), which bars bail if a prima facie case exists based solely on prosecution material.
• A wider definition of terrorism makes it easier to satisfy the prima facie threshold, thereby entrenching pre-trial detention and shifting power from judiciary to prosecution.
• Across legal systems, stringent statutes demand cautious judicial construction. Departing from this principle accelerates the collapse of procedural safeguards and normalises preventive detention over judicial adjudication.

Deference, Evidence, and the Language of Conspiracy

• The factual assessment within the order reflects a deferential approach toward prosecutorial narratives.
• The available evidence indicates organisational efforts surrounding anti-CAA protests, including coordination of demonstrations and chakka jams.
• These activities fall within the constitutional right to protest, even when disruptive. In the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to violence, the prosecution invoked a theory of conspiracy, alleging managerial responsibility for the riots.
• Conspiracy theories often operate as substitutes for evidentiary gaps. Throughout history, from political trials in colonial contexts to episodes like the Dreyfus Affair, conspiracy has served as a legal framework for incarcerating individuals without concrete proof.
• When liberty is at stake and trial delays are acute, judicial scrutiny should intensify rather than retreat.
• Accepting speculative inferences without robust evidence risks turning accusation into pretext and detention into indefinite punishment.

Conclusion

• The continued imprisonment of Khalid and Imam exemplifies the dangers posed by expansive statutory interpretation, prosecutorial discretion, and judicial deference.
• When protest merges with terrorism and delay merges with punishment, constitutional commitments to liberty, dissent, and due process erode.
• Correcting this imbalance is a matter of democratic principle and requires judicial willingness to prioritise liberty over speculative narratives of national security.