The Supreme Court on Monday decided to examine if all border States have to be treated alike while demarcating the area of jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF), a central unit.
The court was hearing a dispute raised by Punjab against the Centre for extending BSF’s jurisdiction from 15 km to 50 km from the Indo-Pakistan border.
The top court said it would determine whether the Centre had encroached into the legislative domain of Punjab.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud fixed the third week of April for hearing the suit filed by Punjab accusing the Centre of virtually stripping the State and its police of its powers. The Constitution gives the State control over the police and of maintaining public order.
Punjab has challenged the constitutional validity of a notification issued by the Centre in October 2021 extending the reach of the BSF to 50 km by invoking Section 139 of the BSF Act, 1968. The provision authorises the Centre to confer powers and duties on members of the BSF force in respect of any Central Acts. The purpose of the particular provision was to gain a more effective control on trans-border crimes in conjunction and cooperation with the State Police.
The court agreed to look into whether the notification amounted to an “arbitrary exercise of power” by the Centre under Section 139 and an “unconstitutional interference” into Punjab’s authority.
The Bench, framing the issues for consideration in the suit, said it would consider if the “increase of jurisdiction of the BSF to 50 km was beyond the ‘local limits of area adjoining the borders of India’ under Section 139”. The court said it would decide the factors which have to be taken into account when demarcating the area of jurisdiction of the BSF in a border area within a State.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, said the jurisdiction of the BSF in Gujarat was 80 km. It was 50 km in Rajasthan.
“In some cases, it is the State entirely…” Mr. Mehta submitted.
The Centre has argued that the extension of jurisdiction had been made to better police crimes involving illegal entry into the country and offences under the Passport Act.
Advocate General of Punjab however countered that BSF jurisdiction would depend on factors such as topography, population concentration, etc.
Advocate Shadan Farasat, also for Punjab, argued that unlike Gujarat and Rajasthan, which had large stretches of marsh land and desert, respectively, 50 km in Punjab, which was a comparatively smaller State, would include cities and towns within its ambit.
“The extension of the BSF’s jurisdiction would take away our powers under Entries one and two (public order and police) in the State List,” he submitted.
