Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, through the Seventh Schedule, clearly demarcates subjects between the Union and the States, with ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ falling squarely within the State List (List II). However, in recent years, a paradoxical situation has emerged where Central agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) have been increasingly involved in maintaining law and order, often perceived as encroaching upon the powers constitutionally vested in State Governments. This trend, while often justified on grounds of national security and inter-state coordination, raises fundamental questions about the delicate balance of power enshrined in the Indian federal structure. The increasing use of central agencies in states, even without explicit requests, has become a point of contention between the Centre and several State governments.
Justifications for Central Intervention
Several factors justify the increased involvement of Central agencies in matters traditionally considered within the State’s purview:
- National Security Concerns: Terrorism, Naxalism, and cross-border crime pose threats to national security, necessitating a coordinated, national-level response. The NIA Act, 2008, empowers the NIA to investigate such offences even without the State Government’s consent, though ideally, consent is sought.
- Inter-State Crime: Crimes like human trafficking, drug smuggling, and organized crime often transcend state boundaries, requiring Central agencies to investigate and coordinate efforts across states.
- Capacity Building & Resource Constraints: Some State police forces may lack the specialized skills, equipment, or resources to effectively tackle complex crimes. Central agencies can provide assistance in such cases.
- Constitutional Provisions: Article 355 of the Constitution empowers the Union Government to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance. This is often cited as a basis for deploying CAPFs.
- Central Government Schemes: Schemes like the Modernization of State Police Forces (MOPF) scheme (initiated in 2018) provide financial assistance to states for upgrading their police infrastructure, indirectly increasing central influence.
The Paradox & Concerns
Despite the justifications, the increasing intervention of Central agencies raises several concerns:
- Erosion of Federalism: Frequent and unilateral deployment of Central agencies without adequate consultation with State Governments undermines the principles of cooperative federalism. This can lead to mistrust and strained Centre-State relations.
- Misuse of Power: There are concerns that Central agencies might be used for political purposes, targeting opposition parties or suppressing dissent in states governed by different political ideologies. The alleged misuse of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and CBI has been a recurring theme in political discourse.
- Dilution of State Police Authority: Over-reliance on Central agencies can weaken the capacity and morale of State police forces.
- Lack of Accountability: The accountability mechanisms for Central agencies are often perceived as inadequate, leading to concerns about transparency and fairness.
- Impact on Police-Public Relations: The involvement of external agencies can disrupt the established rapport between the State police and the local community.
Examples of Central Agency Intervention
Several instances illustrate this trend:
- West Bengal & NIA: The NIA’s investigation into post-poll violence in West Bengal in 2021, often conducted without the full cooperation of the State Government, sparked a major controversy.
- Maharashtra & CBI/ED: The investigations by the CBI and ED into cases involving political leaders in Maharashtra, particularly after the change in government in 2022, were seen by many as politically motivated.
- Punjab & BSF Jurisdiction: The extension of the Border Security Force’s (BSF) jurisdiction in Punjab in 2021, allowing them to operate further inland, was strongly opposed by the State Government.
- Kerala & NIA: The NIA’s involvement in cases related to alleged ‘Love Jihad’ in Kerala raised concerns about the agency’s impartiality and its impact on social harmony.
Balancing Act: Towards a More Cooperative Approach
Addressing this paradox requires a more nuanced and cooperative approach:
- Strengthening Inter-State Council: Revitalizing the Inter-State Council, as envisioned by Article 263 of the Constitution, can provide a platform for regular dialogue and coordination between the Centre and States.
- Clear Guidelines & Protocols: Establishing clear guidelines and protocols for the deployment of Central agencies in States, with a greater emphasis on consultation and consent.
- Capacity Building of State Police: Investing in the capacity building of State police forces, providing them with the necessary resources and training to effectively tackle complex crimes.
- Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms: Enhancing the accountability mechanisms for Central agencies, ensuring transparency and fairness in their operations.
- Respecting the Federal Spirit: The Union Government should demonstrate greater respect for the federal spirit of the Constitution, avoiding actions that undermine the autonomy of State Governments.
Conclusion
The increasing involvement of Central agencies in law and order administration, while often justified by legitimate security concerns, presents a significant challenge to India’s federal structure. A delicate balance must be struck between the need for national security and the preservation of State autonomy. Strengthening cooperative federalism through regular dialogue, clear guidelines, and capacity building of State police forces is crucial to address this paradox and ensure a more harmonious Centre-State relationship. Ignoring this dynamic risks further eroding trust and undermining the foundations of India’s democratic polity.
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.