Exclusive interview on BSF – Current Deployment Dilemma

What this session covered

This session was a single-guest interview in which the interviewer questioned one speaker, a retired senior police officer, about the 2021 central notification extending the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force for search, seizure and arrest to 50 kilometres in Punjab and West Bengal, alongside a reduction from 80 to 50 kilometres in Gujarat. The official rationales discussed were the creation of a uniform limit across states, whose earlier limits had varied, and concern over cross-border activity, including infiltration and the movement of arms by drone linked to developments in the wider region.

The speaker's principal argument was that public order and policing are a State subject under the State List of Article 246 of the Constitution, and that extending the force's jurisdiction without the concurrence of the state governments concerned raised questions of constitutional validity, particularly in states governed by opposition parties. The interviewer noted that the notification was framed under specific central statutes — the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Passport (Entry into India) Act and the Passport Act of 1967, with added powers of seizure under the narcotics, arms and customs laws — rather than under law and order as such; the speaker said he partly accepted this while qualifying that the criminal procedure code operates as a broad, umbrella provision. Practical concerns were raised over the absence of coordination between the force and the state police, the risk of harassment of villagers and their alienation, and the point that an arrest by the force must still result in a first information report and investigation by the local police, since the force cannot itself file a charge sheet.

The discussion drew on earlier episodes in Punjab to illustrate the difficulties that can arise when forces operate without local intelligence, and considered constitutional history, including a provision inserted by the 42nd Amendment in 1976 and removed two years later. The speaker suggested that, rather than imposition, a structural solution might be found by amending Article 246 to provide for central intervention in defined emergencies while preserving policing as a state responsibility. The measurement of the 50-kilometre band across existing police-station boundaries, the resources required to police a wider zone, the possibility of a legal challenge by state governments, and the change in political posture since a comparable proposal in 2012 were also examined. In closing, the speaker expressed the view that the matter should be resolved by concurrence between the states and the centre, and that an independent jurisdiction for the force was not, in his view, acceptable.

Key points raised

• The session was a single-guest interview examining the 2021 notification that extended BSF search, seizure and arrest jurisdiction to 50 kilometres in Punjab and West Bengal, with a reduction from 80 to 50 kilometres in Gujarat.
• The speaker's central concern was constitutional: policing and public order fall under the State List of Article 246, so extending jurisdiction without state concurrence was questioned, especially where opposition parties govern.
• The interviewer observed that the notification was framed under specific central statutes rather than under law and order, and the speaker said he partly agreed while qualifying the point.
• Practical concerns discussed included the lack of coordination with the state police, the risk of harassment of villagers, and the fact that the force cannot file a charge sheet, leaving investigation to the local police.
• The speaker proposed a possible structural remedy through amendment of Article 246 to allow defined central intervention while retaining policing as a state responsibility.
• The possibility of a legal challenge by state governments and the changed political posture since a comparable 2012 proposal were also examined.