Published Paper Details:

Terrorism continues to be a significant threat to global peace and constitutional democracies, requiring states to enact robust counter-terrorism laws. However, these laws often provoke a complex debate between ensuring national security and protecting civil liberties. This research review critically examines the legal tension between state imperatives and individual rights through a comparative lens, focusing on "India, the United States, the United Kingdom, and international frameworks like the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. It highlights the absence of a universally accepted legal definition of terrorism, creating ambiguity and potential misuse". The evolution of India's anti-terrorism laws--from TADA to UAPA--demonstrates the challenges of balancing security with human rights. Comparative experiences from the U.S., U.K., and the European Union showcase varying degrees of success in maintaining this balance, with frameworks like the European Convention on Human Rights offering vital safeguards. Key civil liberties impacted include freedom of speech, privacy, and access to legal counsel. Judicial review mechanisms, particularly in India, reveal both progress and limitations in curbing executive overreach. Landmark case studies further illustrate the role of courts in defending constitutional values. The review concludes with policy recommendations: the necessity for precise legal definitions, enhanced judicial review, sunset clauses, independent oversight mechanisms, and human rights-compliant procedures. Ultimately, the research underscores the importance of a rights-centric approach to counter-terrorism that aligns security measures with democratic principles and constitutional guarantees, ensuring that the pursuit of national security does not erode the very freedoms it seeks to protect.