Congress-ruled Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra oppose BSF Bill changes
http://t.co/Nihy1IpT
Vishwa Mohan |TNN | May 9, 2012, 03.40AM IST
NEW DELHI: Controversial NCTC is not the only contentious issue, where the government has faced resistance from Congress CMs. The Border Security Force (Amendment) Bill that seeks deployment of the border guarding force in hinterland so that it can exercise its powers of arrest, search and seizure, too, has attracted opposition from certain Congress-ruled states.
While the Congress CMs of Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya had raised objection to NCTC during the meeting on May 5, the other two party-ruled states - Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra - have submitted their written objections to the proposal to amend the BSF Act, 1968.
Though the opposition to both the NCTC and the BSF (Amendment) Bill has primarily revolved around the 'powers' given to these central agencies, states have taken 'different' positions on these matters.
Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya, which raised certain objections to the proposed NCTC in its present form, have concurred with the BSF (Amendment) Bill. Among these three states, Assam had raised objection to the NCTC proposal most aggressively, opposing any unilateral power for central agencies to conduct search, seizure and arrests in state.
Some of the non-Congress-ruled states like Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Goa and West Bengal that opposed to NCTC, describing it an anti-federal proposal have supported proposed amendment in the BSF Act.
In response to a Parliament question on the BSF (Amendment) Bill, the home ministry in its written response in Lok Sabha on Tuesday said, "So far, the state governments of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Odisha, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, West Bengal and NCT of Delhi have concurred with the proposal".
It said, "However, the chief ministers of Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Maharashtra have raised certain objections to this proposal".
As per the present legal position, BSF can be deployed only along or adjoining the borders of India. However in recent times, BSF has been deployed in the hinterland, especially in Chhattisgarh and Odisha, and the said deployments have been questioned.
Besides, in their current deployment in remote districts, a question has arisen whether they can exercise the now available powers under Section 139 of the BSF Act. Hence, the government had proposed to amend the relevant provisions of the Act to correct the legal position, permitting deployment of this force in other parts of the territory (hinterland) as well.
The major objections raised by the CMs are related to conferring of powers of arrest, search and seizure to BSF, when deployed in hinterland as states believe that such powers may be in conflict with functions of the local police. The states have also argued that such powers given to the BSF would weaken the federal structure as it would violate the 'rights' of states.
Such objections were earlier raised by the CMs during the internal security conference on April 16. Subsequently, home minister P Chidambaram on April 20 had written to them, clarifying that there is no proposal to confer any "additional powers" on BSF.
Chidambaram had explained that such powers are already available in Section 139 of the BSF Act, 1968, when deployed in the local limits of such area adjoining the border...................http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JTS8yMDEyLzA1LzA5I0FyMDE1MDA=&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom
http://t.co/Nihy1IpT
Vishwa Mohan |TNN | May 9, 2012, 03.40AM IST
NEW DELHI: Controversial NCTC is not the only contentious issue, where the government has faced resistance from Congress CMs. The Border Security Force (Amendment) Bill that seeks deployment of the border guarding force in hinterland so that it can exercise its powers of arrest, search and seizure, too, has attracted opposition from certain Congress-ruled states.
While the Congress CMs of Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya had raised objection to NCTC during the meeting on May 5, the other two party-ruled states - Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra - have submitted their written objections to the proposal to amend the BSF Act, 1968.
Though the opposition to both the NCTC and the BSF (Amendment) Bill has primarily revolved around the 'powers' given to these central agencies, states have taken 'different' positions on these matters.
Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya, which raised certain objections to the proposed NCTC in its present form, have concurred with the BSF (Amendment) Bill. Among these three states, Assam had raised objection to the NCTC proposal most aggressively, opposing any unilateral power for central agencies to conduct search, seizure and arrests in state.
Some of the non-Congress-ruled states like Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Goa and West Bengal that opposed to NCTC, describing it an anti-federal proposal have supported proposed amendment in the BSF Act.
In response to a Parliament question on the BSF (Amendment) Bill, the home ministry in its written response in Lok Sabha on Tuesday said, "So far, the state governments of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Odisha, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, West Bengal and NCT of Delhi have concurred with the proposal".
It said, "However, the chief ministers of Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Maharashtra have raised certain objections to this proposal".
As per the present legal position, BSF can be deployed only along or adjoining the borders of India. However in recent times, BSF has been deployed in the hinterland, especially in Chhattisgarh and Odisha, and the said deployments have been questioned.
Besides, in their current deployment in remote districts, a question has arisen whether they can exercise the now available powers under Section 139 of the BSF Act. Hence, the government had proposed to amend the relevant provisions of the Act to correct the legal position, permitting deployment of this force in other parts of the territory (hinterland) as well.
The major objections raised by the CMs are related to conferring of powers of arrest, search and seizure to BSF, when deployed in hinterland as states believe that such powers may be in conflict with functions of the local police. The states have also argued that such powers given to the BSF would weaken the federal structure as it would violate the 'rights' of states.
Such objections were earlier raised by the CMs during the internal security conference on April 16. Subsequently, home minister P Chidambaram on April 20 had written to them, clarifying that there is no proposal to confer any "additional powers" on BSF.
Chidambaram had explained that such powers are already available in Section 139 of the BSF Act, 1968, when deployed in the local limits of such area adjoining the border...................http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JTS8yMDEyLzA1LzA5I0FyMDE1MDA=&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom
No comments:
Post a Comment