Punjab has challenged in the Supreme Court the central government’s October 11 decision to extend the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) from 15km to 50km from the international border.
Terming it an “encroachment” on the state’s duty to maintain law and order, the Congress government wants the apex court to stay the October 11 notification issued by the Union home ministry.
The decision, taken without consulting the state, could lead to local unrest, particularly among farmers who have to negotiate barbed wires to cultivate their farms near the border, the Punjab government said in its suit filed through lawyer Ashok K Mahajan.
“Punjab is a small state and has a very potent history,” the state government said in its suit. “….no reason can justify extension of jurisdiction to the belt of 50 kilometres, which is likely to give rise to unrest among the populace, including the peasantry, which has to cross the barbed wire to cultivate their land along the border.”
The extended jurisdiction means that more than 80% area of the border districts and all major towns and cities, including all border district headquarters, fall within the 50km area from the international border with Pakistan, the state government pointed out.
Punjab is not the only state to protest the expansion. The West Bengal assembly, ruled by the Trinamool Congress party, on November 16 passed a resolution against the Centre’s decision to extend BSF’s jurisdiction, becoming the second state to oppose the move through its state legislature. On November 12, the Punjab assembly passed a resolution asking the federal government to withdraw its order.
The order was issued under Section 139 of the BSF Act, 1968. This provision does not give unilateral power to Centre to extend into areas that do not touch the border, and would not fall in the ambit of “local limit” to which BSF jurisdiction can extend, the Punjab government has contended.
The suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution has tried to distinguish the geography and history of Punjab compared with other areas where BSF’s jurisdiction applies, such as Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Gujarat and Rajasthan, where human habitation is sparse near the international border.
“In case of Punjab, area is highly fertile, heavily populated and covers most of physical areas forming part of border districts of Pathankot, Gurdaspur, Amritsar, Tarn Taran, Ferozepur and Fazilka,” the state government said in its suit. “…..geography of Punjab has permitted a dense populace in the area included in the jurisdiction of BSF. The concerns of Punjab are totally different and distinguishable from the geography and concerns of UTs of J&K, Ladakh and states of Gujarat and Rajasthan.”
The suit was filed in the top court on December 1. Prior to hearing the matter, the Supreme Court’s registry has issued summons to the Union of India on Friday through the attorney general for India, asking the Centre to “produce all witnesses and documents” on which they seek to rely upon and appear before the registry within 28 days.
The move to expand the territorial jurisdiction of BSF evoked strong political reactions in Punjab, after which the state’s chief minister, while chairing an all-party meet on October 25, had said his government will challenge the move, saying it was an attack on India’s federal structure.
Reacting on the development, Punjab Congress party chief Navjot Singh Sidhu wrote on his twitter handle, “I congratulate Punjab and it’s legal team to be the 1st to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing an original suit challenging the notification extending the BSF jurisdiction. The fight to retain the principles embodied in the constitution i.e. to retain the federal structure and autonomy of the states has begun … Notice issued to the centre to respond.”
The paramilitary force was there only to complement, assist and strengthen state police and other law-enforcement agencies, Sonali Mishra, inspector general of police, BSF Punjab frontier, had said on November 13.
“We always coordinate with police and other agencies for national security and in the interest of the country,” she had said. “The BSF is not a policing organisation.”
Source Link
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments