In a pivotal case that touches upon the delicate balance of federalism in India, the Supreme Court on 22 January has undertaken the task of examining the constitutional validity of the Central Government’s decision to extend the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in Punjab. This move, which expands the BSF’s operational area from 15 to 50 kilometers from the international border, has raised significant questions about the division of powers between the state and the Centre.
Also read- Supreme Court Elevates 11 Women Lawyers Among 56 To Senior Advocate Status In 2024 (lawchakra.in)
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, has framed several critical legal issues for consideration. These issues were developed from the joint suggestions of the counsels representing both the State of Punjab and the Union of India.
The Supreme Court of India, in addressing the contentious issue of the extension of the Border Security Force’s (BSF) jurisdiction in Punjab, has framed several critical issues for consideration. These issues were formulated based on the joint suggestions provided by the legal representatives of both the State of Punjab and the Union of India. This collaborative approach in framing the issues signifies the Court’s commitment to a comprehensive and balanced examination of the matter, taking into account the perspectives and arguments of both the state and the central government.
- The arbitrariness of the notification dated October 11, 2021, which increased the BSF’s jurisdiction, under Section 139(1) of the BSF Act 1968.
- The interpretation of ‘local limits of areas adjoining the borders of India’ as per the same section.
- Whether all states should be uniformly treated in determining these ‘local limits.’
- The factors to be considered in defining ‘local limits of areas adjoining the borders of India.’
- If the notification constitutes unconstitutional interference in the state’s legislative domain under Entry I and II of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, as argued by Punjab, or if it is related to entries in the Union List, as contended by the Centre.
- The challenge to the constitutionality of the notification under Article 131 of the Constitution.
- The appropriate reliefs and costs applicable to this case.
Representing Punjab, Advocate General Gurminder Singh and Additional Advocate General Shadan Farasat argue that the Centre’s notification violates the principle of federalism by affecting the state’s legislative power over subjects such as public order and police. In contrast, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, defends the notification as a legitimate exercise of power under the BSF Act, relating to defense and armed forces deployment.
Also read- Supreme Court Questions Delay In Listing Adani Power Case: Seeking Accountability (lawchakra.in)
The Court has appointed Harshit Anand (for Punjab) and Kanu Aggarwal (for the Union of India) as nodal counsels to prepare a joint compilation of documentary evidence and precedents, due by March 31, 2024. The hearing is scheduled for April.
Background of the Case:
The controversy began with the Union Home Ministry’s notification on October 11, 2021, amending a July 2014 provision for BSF personnel and officers operating in border areas. This amendment expanded the BSF’s jurisdiction in Punjab, West Bengal, and Assam from 15 km to 50 km from the international border. In contrast, in Gujarat, the jurisdiction was reduced from 80 km to 50 km, while in Rajasthan, it remained unchanged at 50 km.
The Punjab government moved the Supreme Court, challenging this decision. The state’s plea emphasized that the extension of the BSF’s territorial jurisdiction encroached upon its constitutional jurisdiction. The state government expressed concerns that this expansion affects more than 80% of the area in border districts, including major towns and cities, and all district headquarters of these border districts, falling within the 50-km area from the Indo-Pakistan international border.
The state argued that Section 139 of the BSF Act does not grant unilateral power to the Centre to extend into areas not touching the border, which would not fall within the ambit of ‘local limit’ for BSF jurisdiction.
This case is significant as it delves into the nuances of federalism in India, particularly in the context of security and law enforcement along international borders. The Supreme Court’s decision will be crucial in determining the extent of the Centre’s powers in border areas and its impact on the autonomy of border states like Punjab.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
