The coexistence of national security imperatives and the protection of fundamental human rights have long posed a constitutional dilemma in India. This paper critically examines the trajectory of India’s counterterrorism framework from the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) to the present Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to assess its conformity with the due process model envisaged under Articles 20 to 22 of the Constitution. Drawing on empirical data from the National Crime Records Bureau (2014-2023), judicial pronouncements, and official reports, it reveals that, despite successive legal reforms, the state’s reliance on the crime-control model has led to widespread misuse, prolonged detentions, and declining public faith in the justice system. The analysis underscores that safeguarding national security must not come at the cost of constitutional morality and procedural fairness. The paper argues for structural reforms such as establishing a Joint Committee on National Security and Human Rights and reinforcing the National Security Act, 1980, with procedural safeguards to ensure that counterterrorism laws remain instruments of justice rather than oppression. By integrating legal analysis with contemporary data and case law, the study contributes to ongoing debates on balancing liberty, security, and accountability within a democratic constitutional order.