.
Joginder Singh
In response to the terrorist attack on Mumbai, the cornered government has responded to the needs and demands of a federal investigating agency. It was a quick U-turn against the proclamations of the former Union Home Minister who had dismissed all such demands in the past.
In a quick measure the government passed the National Investigative Agency Bill, which became a law on January 1. The NIA Act provided for setting up a special agency at the national level ‘‘to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of state, friendly relations with foreign states and offences under Acts, enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organizations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’’.
As per the new law, investigation of scheduled offences is contingent upon the State government perceiving that such a crime had been committed and sending a report to the Centre in this regard. Upon receipt of such a report, the Centre will decide within 15 days whether the said offence is scheduled or not. In special circumstances, if the Centre is of the view that a scheduled offence has been committed, then it may suo moto direct the NIA to investigate such an offence. Prosecution of scheduled offences would be conducted by constituting one or more special courts, which will be presided over by a judge appointed by the Central government on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Mumbai terror attacks acted as a catalyst for the establishment of the NIA. A draft law for such an agency was proposed as early as 1986-89, when a draft Bill for a separate law for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enabling it to investigate ‘‘federal crimes’’ was prepared.
A number of committees including the Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms in 2000 and the Justice VS Malimath Committee on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System in 2003, as well as Madhav Menon Committee, had also advocated the setting up of a central nodal agency to investigate and prosecute certain offences of terrorism as well as offences with inter-State and international ramifications.
In June 2007, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in its fifth report on public order also recommended the setting up of a federal agency to deal with offences that often impinged upon national security. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 24th report tabled in the Rajya Sabha in May 2008 had also proposed the ‘‘setting up of a national-level agency or reconstituting the CBI and developing it on the lines of the American agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which handles all terror-related and nationally important cases’’. In its eighth report on ‘‘combating terrorism’’, released in September 2008, the second ARC reiterated its earlier recommendation to establish a specialized wing of the CBI to deal with major offences such as terrorism. But it only needed a dastardly terrorist attack to spur the government to action. So the setting up of this agency is not a day too soon.
The terrorist attacks in the country, at places hundreds of miles away from each other, like Bangalore, Guwahati, Surat, Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi, only show that terrorist destruction and devastation have increased in their scale, intensity and geographical spread. The terrorists, after attacking one place, quickly move to other places to cause havoc there. The State police is hampered because its jurisdiction is confined to a limited area. Besides, it has limited resources or practically no upgradation of skills, weaponery, equipment and expertise. Also, the police at the State level would be bothered about peace and tranquillity in its own jurisdiction, and not what happens thousands of miles away.
At the State chief ministers’ conference held in the first week of January, many chief ministers expressed their reservations and apprehensions that the National Investigative Agency would dilute the federal structure and would encroach on the powers of the States. The new Union Home Minister pointed out that all scheduled offences were ‘‘essentially terrorism-related’’ and the FIR of all such offences would be registered at the local police station, just as for any other crime, and a report about the same would be sent to the State government which will forward it to the Central government. The Central government would decide, within a period of 15 days, whether the case needed to be investigated by the NIA. The fact that the view of the State government would be taken into consideration before deciding to hand over the case to the NIA is not mentioned. However in ‘‘exceptional’’ cases, the Central government may suo motu direct the NIA to take up the investigation of a case. Once the case is entrusted to the NIA, it would take over the investigations from the State police. Whether to associate the State police in the investigations would be a discretion for the NIA to exercise.
Despite the fact that the National Investigative Agency is only a half measure, it is a good beginning. States are loathe to losing their control on policing, though they themselves are ill-equipped to deal with terrorism, which is not only an inter-State but also a transnational phenomenon. Theoretically, the States are responsible for tackling terrorism, yet none of them have been able to tackle or eradicate it.
As per the present amended law, the onus still remains on the police to prove that a particular person is a terrorist. How do you prove it, when any confession made before the police is not admissible? The absence of any witness protection in the Act does not encourage even the genuine witnesses to come forth to depose against the dreaded terrorists who would not hesitate to kill to obliterate all their connections and linkages.
The politicians quibbling over the role of the NIA should remember that a statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of the nation, whereas a politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service.
(The writer is a former CBI Director) (ADNI)
source: the sentinel assam
Joginder Singh
In response to the terrorist attack on Mumbai, the cornered government has responded to the needs and demands of a federal investigating agency. It was a quick U-turn against the proclamations of the former Union Home Minister who had dismissed all such demands in the past.
In a quick measure the government passed the National Investigative Agency Bill, which became a law on January 1. The NIA Act provided for setting up a special agency at the national level ‘‘to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of state, friendly relations with foreign states and offences under Acts, enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organizations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’’.
As per the new law, investigation of scheduled offences is contingent upon the State government perceiving that such a crime had been committed and sending a report to the Centre in this regard. Upon receipt of such a report, the Centre will decide within 15 days whether the said offence is scheduled or not. In special circumstances, if the Centre is of the view that a scheduled offence has been committed, then it may suo moto direct the NIA to investigate such an offence. Prosecution of scheduled offences would be conducted by constituting one or more special courts, which will be presided over by a judge appointed by the Central government on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Mumbai terror attacks acted as a catalyst for the establishment of the NIA. A draft law for such an agency was proposed as early as 1986-89, when a draft Bill for a separate law for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enabling it to investigate ‘‘federal crimes’’ was prepared.
A number of committees including the Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms in 2000 and the Justice VS Malimath Committee on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System in 2003, as well as Madhav Menon Committee, had also advocated the setting up of a central nodal agency to investigate and prosecute certain offences of terrorism as well as offences with inter-State and international ramifications.
In June 2007, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in its fifth report on public order also recommended the setting up of a federal agency to deal with offences that often impinged upon national security. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 24th report tabled in the Rajya Sabha in May 2008 had also proposed the ‘‘setting up of a national-level agency or reconstituting the CBI and developing it on the lines of the American agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which handles all terror-related and nationally important cases’’. In its eighth report on ‘‘combating terrorism’’, released in September 2008, the second ARC reiterated its earlier recommendation to establish a specialized wing of the CBI to deal with major offences such as terrorism. But it only needed a dastardly terrorist attack to spur the government to action. So the setting up of this agency is not a day too soon.
The terrorist attacks in the country, at places hundreds of miles away from each other, like Bangalore, Guwahati, Surat, Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi, only show that terrorist destruction and devastation have increased in their scale, intensity and geographical spread. The terrorists, after attacking one place, quickly move to other places to cause havoc there. The State police is hampered because its jurisdiction is confined to a limited area. Besides, it has limited resources or practically no upgradation of skills, weaponery, equipment and expertise. Also, the police at the State level would be bothered about peace and tranquillity in its own jurisdiction, and not what happens thousands of miles away.
At the State chief ministers’ conference held in the first week of January, many chief ministers expressed their reservations and apprehensions that the National Investigative Agency would dilute the federal structure and would encroach on the powers of the States. The new Union Home Minister pointed out that all scheduled offences were ‘‘essentially terrorism-related’’ and the FIR of all such offences would be registered at the local police station, just as for any other crime, and a report about the same would be sent to the State government which will forward it to the Central government. The Central government would decide, within a period of 15 days, whether the case needed to be investigated by the NIA. The fact that the view of the State government would be taken into consideration before deciding to hand over the case to the NIA is not mentioned. However in ‘‘exceptional’’ cases, the Central government may suo motu direct the NIA to take up the investigation of a case. Once the case is entrusted to the NIA, it would take over the investigations from the State police. Whether to associate the State police in the investigations would be a discretion for the NIA to exercise.
Despite the fact that the National Investigative Agency is only a half measure, it is a good beginning. States are loathe to losing their control on policing, though they themselves are ill-equipped to deal with terrorism, which is not only an inter-State but also a transnational phenomenon. Theoretically, the States are responsible for tackling terrorism, yet none of them have been able to tackle or eradicate it.
As per the present amended law, the onus still remains on the police to prove that a particular person is a terrorist. How do you prove it, when any confession made before the police is not admissible? The absence of any witness protection in the Act does not encourage even the genuine witnesses to come forth to depose against the dreaded terrorists who would not hesitate to kill to obliterate all their connections and linkages.
The politicians quibbling over the role of the NIA should remember that a statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of the nation, whereas a politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service.
(The writer is a former CBI Director) (ADNI)
source: the sentinel assam
No comments:
Post a Comment