Terrorism in an eclectic manner means a group or association of people who are pursuing a common goal that is anti-establishment in nature. We cannot term terrorism precisely because it has assorted and vague implications around the globe. Though the United Nations and other countries have coined different terms, the crux of all those explanations is the same, which consistently portrays that it is non-placet in nature.

 In a landmark case of PUCL Vs U.O.I., the hon. Supreme court While discussing POTA [Prevention of terrorist acts] 2002, the court has mentioned "terrorist acts" specifically in which the court has discussed several elements of terrorism that are causing  a sheer threat among ordinary people. The particular objective of a terrorist group is not only to cause harm but also to pursue a rational goal which is illegitimate.

Those reasons are the unlawful occupation of a geographical territory to establish or force a particular religion or ideology. Obviously, if we speak about the root cause to cause terrorism, it may not be justified; however, by the opinion of several beaurocrates it can be differentiated from oppression, subjugation, corruption, injustice, poverty, deprivation, segregation, hegemony, colonization, apartheid, globalization, modernization, historical practices, philosophies that condone the religious abuse.

Furthermore, as George W. Bush said, "By fighting terrorists, we do not create terrorism; ignoring them invites terrorism." Therefore, the need for the hour is to devise ways of counteracting and combating these actions, and what other method can be more successful in this regard than enforcing rules. So, in order to combat this spreading filth of violence, we need anti-terror legislation around the world.

A comprehensive legal policy to fight terrorism that should must take a variety of complementary and mutually reinforcing steps, ranging from increased international cooperation in the prevention, criminal prosecution, and suppression of terrorist acts to long-term cooperative schemes to rectify or at least reduce their root causes, if they are to result in improved control and eventual eradication of terrorism. The decision to use terrorism is a conscious choice between options, irrespective of the consistency and completeness of the facts on which the decision is based.

Causes And Impacts
 The several "root causes" of terrorism that have been offered do not cause terrorism, but maybe influences that impact the choosing of terrorism as a tool. There are no causes that allow any strategy to be used—people in similar conditions have chosen or refused terrorism as a way of struggle.

In the twentieth and early twentieth centuries, the use of terrorism itself has usually become unsuccessful in reaching a goal, but people who use the weapon believe that using it would at least advance their goal, and therefore make it easier for other resources to become usable. The late 18th and 19th centuries were the phase of revolution when people were fighting for basic rights, the injustice and insurrection, but choosing terrorism as an alternative was not rational.

The role of law in counter-terrorism has been intensified in recent times. Organizations like the U.N., NATO, FATF, and several other welfare organizations and countries are working on counter-terrorism that emphasizes awareness of the threat. It also develops capabilities to prepare and respond by applying several stringent laws. FATF blacklisted countries like North Korea and Iran which probably intends to end the majority of diplomatic relations and financial helps by the associated countries.

These stringent actions always make a statement about how the rule of law is being implemented steadily. Moving back to the other facets of the role of law in crime often poses many concerns about the civil rights problems of an ordinary man and how they are being compromised. Back in antiquity, India experienced a series of draconian laws that set the government on a high pedestal and terrorized commoners laws like the AFSPA is one of them.

This kind of law became infamous because it did not recognize the lawful and constitutional security of civil rights, mainly when it came to competition and during the time of national emergency (1975-1977) when thousands of innocent citizens were alleged to have been unfairly imprisoned, tortured and, in some cases, forced sterilized.

The 39th amendment to the Constitution of India inserted MISA in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, rendering it entirely free from any judicial scrutiny, except on the grounds that it infringed the constitutional rights granted by the Constitution or breached the basic structure. The verdict of the majority of the Supreme Court in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla marked one of the darkest times of India's constitutional history.

The decision repeals the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of India. All of these examples were shown to demonstrate the other aspect of the role of law in terrorism. Terrorism is an absolute threat to society, and some practical measures are the need of an hour to combat this issue. Security analyses need to be precise to prevent overestimating and underestimating the threat.

Threat assessments ought to be impartial to prevent prejudice on the part of those who have economic objectives, political objectives rather than counter-terrorism, or ideological biases towards some methods. There might be a desire to interpret the threat of terrorism in the context of recent terrorist attacks and campaigns. Viewing the danger of terrorism in terms of the current threat could lead to overlooking the potential for attacks to originate in unlikely directions.

The danger of terrorism arises from the decision to use terrorism. The source of the challenge is changing as various organizations pick up and avoid using terrorism on behalf of different aims, which have themselves changed over time. In a developing countries Like India, it's critical that when anti-terrorism laws are implemented, they're made so strict that the perpetrator is brought to justice and doesn't get away with it because of loopholes or flaws.

The possibility of terrorism has to be carefully labelled. Inaccurate characterization of the threat of terrorism will obscure or misrepresent the real threat, making it more challenging to control terrorism.