increase in BSF operational jurisdiction- Limits and borders

Source: The post increase in BSF operational jurisdiction has been created, based on the article “Limits and borders” published in “The Hindu” on 24th January 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 3 Internal Security – Issues related to Border Management, GS paper 2 – Polity- issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure.

News: The article discusses a dispute between Punjab and the Indian central government about increasing the Border Security Force’s (BSF) operational area from 15 km to 50 km in Punjab.

What changes have been made by the October 2021 Centre notification under the BSF Act?

1.The BSF’s operational jurisdiction was expanded from 15 km to 50 km from the border in Punjab, West Bengal and Assam.

2.In Gujarat, the BSF’s jurisdiction was decreased from 80 km to 50 km.

3.For Rajasthan, the operational area of the BSF remained the same at 50 km.

How does the BSF operate?

Preventing Trans-Border Crimes: The BSF’s primary role is to stop unauthorized entries and exits across India’s borders.

However, the BSF does not have authority to investigate or prosecute offenders. It has to hand over those arrested, and the contraband seized from them to the local police.

Coordination with Local Police: They work closely with the police for law enforcement, especially in border areas.

Search and Seizure Operations: The BSF conducts searches and seizures, especially in cases where offenders penetrate deep into the country.

What are the different arguments related to this dispute?

Arguments from the States (Punjab and West Bengal)

Expansion Oversteps Powers: expansion from 15 km to 50 km infringes on their jurisdiction over law and order. Using Article 131, Punjab filed a lawsuit against the Union government, claiming that the increase in jurisdiction violates the Constitution. State governments are constitutionally responsible for maintaining public order and exercising police powers.

Note: Article 131 vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over disputes occurring between states or between states and the Centre.

For more information read here

Violation of Federal Principles: The move is seen as a breach of federalism, where state powers should be respected.

Legislative Action: Both states have passed resolutions in their assemblies opposing the BSF’s expanded jurisdiction.

Arguments from the Central Government

Enhanced Border Security: The increase to 50 km is justified to improve border patrol effectiveness.

Standardizing Operations: The expansion aims to unify the operational area across different states for consistency.

Perspective of the Supreme Court

Legal Examination: The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the expansion encroaches upon state government’s domain.

Constitutional Balance: The court is assessing the balance of powers between the central and state governments under the constitutional framework.

Way forward

The way forward involves a balanced approach respecting both national security needs and state autonomy. Effective consultation between the central and state governments, along with the Supreme Court’s guidance, can lead to a solution that upholds constitutional principles and federalism.

Question for practice:

What are the key legal disputes and arguments regarding the increase in the BSF’s operational jurisdiction.