National security is often thought of as the unshakable bedrock of a nation’s stability. In India, it has long been portrayed through grand narratives of strength, resilience, and strategic might. Yet, every act of terror, every data breach, and every insurgent whisper exposes a quieter, more troubling truth: our national security is far more fragile than we like to admit.
The legal framework in India for countering terrorism and threats to sovereignty is robust on paper. Laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act), and amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provide the state with extensive powers to combat threats. However, the existence of laws is not the same as their effective application. Gaps in enforcement, intelligence failures, bureaucratic delays, and politicization of security issues continue to create cracks that adversaries exploit.
The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, serves as a painful reminder of the vulnerabilities that persist despite the legal and policy frameworks in place. In one of India’s most heavily monitored regions, the brazen targeting of civilians highlights critical gaps in preventive security, intelligence coordination, and grassroots de-radicalization. Beyond the immediate tragedy, the Pahalgam attack exposes how, despite robust laws like the UAPA and the presence of centralized agencies, operational loopholes and a reactive security doctrine continue to endanger public safety. It underlines the pressing need for a shift from event-driven responses to a proactive, intelligence-led, and constitutionally disciplined national security strategy.
The jurisprudence surrounding national security and constitutional rights in India reflects an evolving balance between the imperatives of state security and the preservation of fundamental freedoms. In the early years of the Constitution, the judiciary tended to favour state authority in matters of national security. This was evident in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of preventive detention laws and adopted a narrow interpretation of Article 21, suggesting that any procedure established by law, however arbitrary, would suffice to curtail personal liberty.
However, this deferential stance underwent a paradigm shift with the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Here, the Court broadened the scope of Article 21, emphasizing that the procedure affecting life and liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable” and not arbitrary, thereby embedding due process into Indian constitutional law. This evolution indicated that national security measures could not bypass constitutional scrutiny merely by existing under statutory authority; they needed to meet substantive standards of fairness.
Despite this advancement, the dark episode of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) during the Emergency period demonstrated the fragility of rights under political pressure. The Court’s infamous endorsement of the suspension of habeas corpus was later widely condemned, and the judiciary itself recognized this judgment as a mistake in later decisions, including Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21, and that any restriction on it, even in the name of national security, must satisfy tests of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
Furthermore, in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), while upholding the constitutionality of stringent anti-terror laws like TADA, the Court stressed the necessity of procedural safeguards to prevent their misuse. This judgment underscored that while extraordinary circumstances may warrant extraordinary measures, such powers must be exercised with constitutional discipline and rigorous oversight.
Thus, modern Indian jurisprudence asserts that national security concerns must be weighed carefully against the inviolable rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The judiciary has moved from a phase of unquestioning acceptance of state power to one of vigilant scrutiny. Security and liberty are no longer treated as adversaries but as twin pillars of a resilient democracy. Any measures that infringe on fundamental rights must now withstand constitutional tests to ensure that the fight to secure the nation does not itself become a source of injustice.
Policy formulation, too, often suffers from being reactive rather than preventative. Major reforms in security structures typically follow tragic events, not precede them. Whether it was the restructuring of counter-terrorism forces post-26/11 or the tightening of cyber laws after major data breaches, India’s national security discourse is often one step behind emerging threats. Preventative intelligence, especially at the local level, remains underdeveloped. Community policing, social media monitoring, and grassroots-level de-radicalization strategies are not institutionalized, leaving society vulnerable to ideological penetration and mobilization.
Perhaps the most alarming gap is the absence of a coherent doctrine that balances national security with constitutional liberties. The right to privacy, reinforced by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), is a fundamental right under Article 21. Yet, surveillance regimes, data breaches, and broad counter-terror laws frequently encroach upon personal freedoms. Without strong legislative and judicial oversight mechanisms, there is a real risk of eroding fundamental rights in the name of security.
There is also a growing need to view national security beyond military and terror threats. Economic stability, cybersecurity, public health resilience, and even climate change are now integral to a nation’s overall security. A virus crossing borders, a cyberattack crippling infrastructure, or a drought triggering migration can destabilize a country just as much as an external attack. Our laws and policies, however, continue to prioritize conventional threats while underestimating these non-traditional challenges.
In the coming years, India’s security policies must pivot toward agility, anticipation, and integration. Laws need periodic updating to match technological changes. Intelligence networks must emphasize real-time, ground-up reporting instead of hierarchical bottlenecks. Public policy must invest heavily in education, awareness, and creating societal resilience against radicalization and misinformation.
The fragility of our national security does not lie in a lack of bravery among soldiers or police forces. It lies in the gaps between law and enforcement, between policy and action, between short-term reactions and long-term strategy. Recognizing these gaps is not a sign of weakness; it is the first step toward genuinely securing a nation as vast and complex as India.
Grand speeches and tough-sounding laws will not save us. Quiet, persistent, intelligent reforms will. It is time India accepted that national security is not a one-time achievement but a continuous, evolving responsibility — one that demands more than pride; it demands precision, constitutional discipline, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law.
#NationalSecurity #ConstitutionalLaw #FundamentalRights #IndianLaw #Jurisprudence #PublicPolicy #RuleOfLaw #HumanRights #CounterTerrorism #LawAndPolicy #SupremeCourt #SecurityVsLiberty #Governance
Law And Policy 