Published Paper Details:

The interplay between national security and human rights represents one of the most complex challenges in constitutional democracies, particularly in India, where threats of terrorism, internal insurgencies, and cross-border tensions frequently demand strong state responses. At the same time, the Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights that safeguard individual liberty, dignity, and freedom. The judiciary has emerged as the key arbiter in striking this delicate balance, ensuring that security concerns do not become a pretext for unchecked state power. Through landmark judgments, Indian courts have consistently emphasized that national security, while vital, cannot override the constitutional mandate to protect human rights. The evolution of jurisprudence--from preventive detention cases to the recognition of the right to privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India--illustrates the courts' attempt to harmonize state interests with civil liberties. Judicial review has played a critical role in subjecting executive action to constitutional scrutiny, particularly in situations involving surveillance, censorship, custodial practices, and emergency powers. However, courts have also demonstrated judicial restraint in matters that directly affect sovereignty and public order, reflecting the tension between security imperatives and individual freedoms. This study critically examines the judicial role in balancing these competing concerns, highlighting both progressive interventions and instances of deference to state authority. It argues that a principled and consistent judicial approach is indispensable for safeguarding democratic values while responding effectively to security challenges. The paper underscores that the judiciary's vigilance remains central to sustaining the equilibrium between protecting the nation and upholding the rights of its people.