Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
‘Law and order’ is a fundamental aspect of governance, encompassing the maintenance of peace, security, and the enforcement of laws within a defined territory. Currently, ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ (which are integral to law and order) fall under Entry 1 and 2 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. However, the increasing complexities of internal security threats – including terrorism, organized crime, cybercrime, and Naxalism – coupled with their inter-state and transnational dimensions, have sparked debate on whether ‘law and order’ should be moved to the Concurrent List, allowing both the Centre and States to legislate on the matter. This shift is argued to enhance national security coordination, but raises concerns about potential overreach by the central government and infringement upon states’ rights.
Current Constitutional Framework & Rationale for Debate
The Indian Constitution, based on the principle of federalism, clearly demarcates legislative powers between the Union and the States. The State List grants exclusive powers to States over matters like police, public order, and local self-government. The Union List deals with subjects of national importance like defence and foreign affairs. The Concurrent List allows both the Centre and States to legislate, but in case of conflict, the Union law prevails. The debate on including ‘law and order’ in the Concurrent List stems from the perceived inadequacy of the existing framework to address modern security challenges effectively.
Arguments in Favour of Inclusion in the Concurrent List
- Enhanced National Security Coordination: Inter-state and transnational crimes necessitate a unified approach. A Concurrent List entry would facilitate better coordination between central agencies (like the NIA, CBI, IB) and state police forces.
- Uniformity in Laws & Procedures: Variations in state laws and policing practices can hinder investigations and create loopholes exploited by criminals. A common framework could ensure greater consistency.
- Capacity Building & Resource Allocation: The Centre could provide financial and technical assistance to states to upgrade their law enforcement capabilities, particularly in areas like cybercrime and counter-terrorism.
- Addressing Emerging Threats: New forms of crime, like cybercrime and narco-terrorism, often transcend state boundaries and require a national-level response.
- Implementation of National Policies: Effective implementation of national security policies, such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change (which has security implications), requires state-level cooperation.
Arguments Against Inclusion in the Concurrent List
- Erosion of State Autonomy: States fear that transferring ‘law and order’ to the Concurrent List would undermine their autonomy and reduce their control over policing. This could lead to political friction and administrative inefficiencies.
- Potential for Central Overreach: Concerns exist that the Centre might use its legislative power to impose uniform policing standards that are not suited to the diverse socio-political contexts of different states.
- Increased Bureaucratic Complexity: Dual control over law and order could lead to confusion and delays in decision-making, hindering effective law enforcement.
- Impact on Federal Fabric: A significant shift in the division of powers could disrupt the delicate balance of the federal structure and exacerbate Centre-State tensions.
- Existing Mechanisms for Coordination: Mechanisms like the Inter-State Council and the National Security Council already exist to facilitate coordination between the Centre and States on security matters. Strengthening these mechanisms might be a more viable alternative.
Comparative Analysis: Existing Legal Frameworks
| Aspect | Current Position | Proposed Position (Concurrent List) |
|---|---|---|
| Legislative Power | Exclusive to States (List II) | Concurrent (Centre & States) |
| Policy Formulation | Primarily State-led | Jointly by Centre & States |
| Resource Allocation | State Budget, limited Central assistance | Increased Central funding & assistance |
| Coordination | Through existing mechanisms (ISC, NSC) | Enhanced through legislation & joint operations |
Recent Developments & Case Studies
The increasing instances of cross-border terrorism (e.g., 2016 Pathankot attack, 2019 Pulwama attack) and the rise of organized crime syndicates operating across multiple states have highlighted the need for better coordination. The establishment of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2008, with powers to investigate offences affecting the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India, is a step in this direction, but its effectiveness is limited by its dependence on state police for investigations. The debate was also reignited following the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, with calls for greater central control over border security.
Conclusion
While the arguments for including ‘law and order’ in the Concurrent List are compelling, particularly in light of evolving security threats, a cautious approach is warranted. A complete transfer of legislative power could erode state autonomy and disrupt the federal balance. Instead, strengthening existing coordination mechanisms, enhancing central assistance to states for capacity building, and enacting model laws on critical areas like cybercrime and terrorism – which states can adopt voluntarily – might be a more pragmatic and constitutionally sound solution. Any changes to the constitutional framework should be undertaken after extensive consultations with states and with a clear understanding of the potential implications for the federal structure.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.