Abstract

Individual rights are always claimed to be unaffected in democratic countries around the world; while this statement is theoretically valid, it is unrealistic, given that human rights are not eternal and are vulnerable to abuse. Indeed, it may be claimed that all countries around the world suffer human rights concerns, albeit to varied degrees. One of the most common reasons for these violations is national security. Individual rights and national security are both crucial ideas in the existence of a democratic society, and they are frequently considered as interconnected, with opposing interests such that prioritising one results in Individual rights and national security are both crucial ideas in the existence of a democratic society, and they are frequently considered as connected, with opposing interests such that prioritising one leads to the neglect or abuse of the other. When considering the aforementioned perspective, one question that emerges is whether it is possible to reconcile the competing demands of national security and individual rights. Through conceptual analysis, an investigation of the legal and ethical concerns, arguments in favour of both interests, and a review of significant cases on the topic, this paper seeks to shed light on the aforementioned question while also analysing the topic of debate as a whole. The word "harmonising" aptly describes the study's objective, which is to strike a balance between safeguarding national security objectives and upholding the important civil liberties protected by the Indian Constitution. This balancing entails the need to ensure that counterterrorism measures do not impose excessive restrictions and that they comply with constitutional norms.

Keywords