• Priyam Singh

It is always an uncomfortable procedure in democracies to use law as a tool to improve national security, where security interests may conflict with the more democratic goal of law and order, maintaining civil liberties. A manifestation of this dilemma is the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA): it is a law that seeks to fulfill both objectives. Therefore, when assessing POTA, the question that should be asked is not how much civil liberty is lost, nor how much security is gained.Instead, the question should be: how willing is India to compromise one of these objectives in order to save the other? Both are integral to the character of India as a sovereign democratic state, but in excess, either of them could harm that character significantly. POTA, standing next to the procedural safeguards of due process with its harsh measures and implementation loopholes, demonstrates Parliament's understanding of the need to compromise, to aim for that elusive optimal point between a safe, undemocratic state and an insecure, volatile, fiercely democratic one.In this paper we will discuss in brief the concept of the Human Rights, Terrorism, need for Counter terrorism laws; analyzethe POTA and at last will conclude on the basis of the discussion made in this paper.

civil liberty;democratic goal;national; security andterrorism.

"A Study on Counter-TerrorismLaws in India", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 1, page no.234-237, January-2019, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIREQ06052.pdf

"A Study on Counter-TerrorismLaws in India", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 1, page no. pp234-237, January-2019, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIREQ06052.pdf