The Supreme Court on Monday framed legal questions to be considered in a suit filed by the Punjab government challenging the Centre’s October 2021 notification extending the Border Security Force’s (BSF) jurisdiction from 15 to 50 kilometers from the international border and agreed to hear the matter in April.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud framed six legal issues raised in the suit after receiving draft suggestions from solicitor general Tushar Mehta representing the Centre, Punjab’s advocate general Gurminder Singh, and the state’s additional advocate general Shadan Farasat.
In 2021, the state filed a complaint in the Supreme Court contesting the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announcement of October 11, 2021, increasing BSF authority within the state’s local borders from 15 kilometers to 50 kilometers from the international boundary. The state alleged that this notification breached the concept of federalism by compromising the state’s legislative jurisdiction over issues such as public order and police.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud framed six legal issues raised in the suit after receiving draft suggestions from solicitor general Tushar Mehta representing the Centre, Punjab’s advocate general Gurminder Singh, and the state’s additional advocate general Shadan Farasat.
What are the issues framed by the Supreme Court?
The questions include whether extending BSF’s local area jurisdiction was arbitrary; whether such extension interfered with the local area jurisdiction of the state police; whether all states are treated equally when determining BSF’s local area jurisdiction; what factors are considered in determining BSF’s local area jurisdiction; and whether the notification’s validity could be challenged under Article 131.
According to Mehta, the BSF Act grants them the authority to arrest individuals who violate border laws in areas ranging from 80 km in Gujarat to 50 km in Rajasthan, 15 km in Punjab, West Bengal, and Assam, and the entire state of Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, and J&K.
The bench, which also included justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, agreed to consider whether the MHA notification is an “arbitrary” exercise of power and whether the increase in the jurisdiction to 50 kilometers constitutes an “unconstitutional interference” in the legislative domain of the state.
On the one hand, the state government claimed that the MHA order affected its ability to legislate over entries 1 and 2 (public order and police), whereas the Centre claimed that it had the legislative capacity to issue the direction under Entries 1 (defense of India), 2 (armed forces), and 2A (army deployment).
The Centre issued the notification under Section 139(1) of the BSF Act, which allows it to prevent any offense involving the Passport Act, Registration of Foreigners Act, Foreigners Act, foreign exchange regulation law, customs, excise laws, or any cognizable offense punishable under any central act within the “local limits of such area adjoining the borders of India.” This section also allowed the BSF to capture anyone who had violated any of the laws listed above.
What does the Punjab Government state?
The state administration has sought a stay of the 2021 notification stating that the decision was taken without consulting the state. According to the notice, “The effect and consequence of the notification are that…more than 80% area of the border districts, all the major towns, and cities, including all the district headquarters of these border districts of Punjab fall within the 50-km area from the Indo-Pakistan international border.”
Punjab further argued that Section 139 of the BSF Act does not provide the Centre unilateral power to extend into regions that do not touch the border and do not come within the scope of the “local limit” to which BSF jurisdiction can extend.
What happened in 2021?
In 2021, the Punjab government filed a Supreme Court petition contesting the Centre’s decision to increase the BSF’s power to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests across a 50-kilometer radius of the international border in Assam, West Bengal, and Punjab, up from 15 kilometers before. According to the state government’s request, the enlargement of the Border Security Force’s (BSF) geographical jurisdiction violates the states’ constitutional jurisdiction.
Comments 1