The question of whether the right to privacy should override national security concerns in cases of surveillance is a complex one without a simple answer. Both are fundamental rights that must be balanced. While national security is crucial for the safety and well-being of a nation, the right to privacy is essential for individual autonomy and the functioning of a democratic society.

The right to privacy and national security are both fundamental but potentially conflicting values. While national security is crucial for protecting the collective well-being, the right to privacy is a cornerstone of individual liberty. A nuanced approach is needed to find a balance where security measures respect privacy, and privacy protections don't unduly hinder legitimate security efforts. The question is not whether one should override the other, but how to reconcile them in a way that protects both individual rights and collective security

The right to privacy, recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21, does not automatically override national security concerns in cases of surveillance. Instead, courts and legal frameworks require a balanced approach: any surveillance must be supported by law, pursue a legitimate state aim, and be proportionate and necessary to the threat, ensuring that privacy is not violated arbitrarily or excessively. This balance upholds both individual rights and collective security in a constitutional democracy.