Read Time: 10 minutes

The Punjab government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the Centre’s decision to extend the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) up to 50km from the international border in the state besides West Bengal and Assam.

Earlier, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed challenging the central government's power to decide the jurisdiction of BSF was moved before the Calcutta High Court on Thursday. The Court has issued notice in the plea.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) recently amended the BSF Act to authorise the force to undertake search, seizure and arrest within a larger 50 km stretch, instead of 15 km, from the international border in Punjab, West Bengal and Assam.

Section 139 of the Act deals with powers and duties conferrable and imposable on members of the force. The Section allows the centre to extend jurisdiction of BSF. However, the centre is supposed to take concurrence of the state and get the same ratified in parliament. Banerjee has prayed that the section should be struck down, due to this contradictory nature which is against Article 14 of the Constitution.

The West Bengal Legislative Assembly on November 16 passed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs extending the territorial jurisdiction of the BSF. The resolution was passed with 112 TMC MLAs voting for it and 63 BJP MLAs voting against it.

Earlir, Varun Gandhi had questioned Nityananda Rai, Minister of Home Affairs for the rationale for extending the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) from 15 km to 50 km inside the international borders in Punjab, West Bengal and Assam by the Government Notification dated 11 October, 2021. The Minister was further asked the rationale for reducing the jurisdiction of BSF from 80 km to 50 km inside the international borders in Gujarat;

To this, Mr. Rai answered

“The extension in territorial jurisdiction of BSF in some States is aimed at empowering BSF to discharge its border guarding duties more effectively in the wake of use of technology like Dynamic Remotely Operated Navigation Equipment (Drones), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs), etc. generally having long range, by anti-national forces for surveillance as well as for smuggling of arms, narcotics and fake Indian currency notes (FICN). It would also help in curbing the menace of cattle smuggling as smugglers take refuge in the interior areas outside the jurisdiction of BSF. “

The Minister has further stated that as required under Section 139(3) of BSF Act, 1968, the notifications have been laid on the table of the Lok Sabha on November 30, 2021. The notifications would be laid on the table of the Rajya Sabha on the day it is included in the list of business.

In the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, the Charanjit Singh Channi-led Congress government said, “Punjab is a small state, but has a very potent history and, therefore, its case and concerns are distinguishable and no reason can justify the extension of jurisdiction (of the BSF) to the belt of 50 km.”

It termed the MHA’s decision a “unilateral declaration” without consulting the state and without conducting any consultative process. The plea further notes that over 80 per cent areas of border districts and all major towns and cities, including district headquarters, would come under BSF’s jurisdiction. MHA’s decision “is likely to give rise to unrest among the populace, including peasantry which has to cross the bribed wire to cultivate their land along the border,” the Government submitted.

Contending that it can lead to chaos and conflict in trial of offences between law enforcement agencies, the state government has urged the top court to stay the October 11, 2021, notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

It assailed the notification on the ground that it “defeats the purpose of Entry 1 and 2 of List-II of Schedule-7 of the Constitution of India and encroaches upon the plaintiff’s plenary authority to legislate on issues that relate to or are necessary for the maintenance of public order and internal peace”.

Under Entry 1 and 2 of List-II (State List) of Schedule-7 of the Constitution, “public order” and “police” are enumerated as subjects on which states are empowered to make laws and exercise executive powers.

“To this extent the defendant (MHA) has departed from the principle of federalism inasmuch as the defendant has no power to make any laws in respect of the matters enumerated in List-II of Schedule-7 of the Constitution of India,” it maintained.

The original suit filed by the Punjab Government was taken up for hearing on Friday by a registrar’s court that asked the Attorney General to respond to it and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.