Plea in Calcutta High Court challenges Centre's power to decide Border Security Force jurisdiction

A petition has been filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging Section 139(1) of the Border Security Force (BSF) Act, 1968 to the extent it grants unrestricted powers to the Central government to fix the territorial jurisdiction of BSF [Sayan Banerjee vs. Union of India]..The plea filed by advocate Sayan Banerjee also challenged the recent move of the Union Home Ministry to increase the BSF's jurisdiction from 15 km to 50 kms for border States."Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment to implead the BSF through the Director General as party respondent in this petition and serve the said respondent," the order by Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj stated. The Bench then directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on December 14.The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition was filed in wake of the Centre government notification increasing the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force, which would affect the States of Assam, West Bengal and Punjab. The notification was issued on October 11 this year by the Union Home Ministry. The PIL filed under Article 226, said that the issue at hand is constitutional one as the move encroaches the upon the authority and power of the States and goes against the federal character of the country envisaged by the Constitution."In SR Bommai v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court held federalism is a basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the said principle of federalism can neither be altered nor touched by any action of the State including the law," the petition stated.However, BSF Act is a law touching upon aspect of law and order which is a State subject as per Constitution and not Central subject, the plea said.Section 139 of the BSF Act gives Centre unrestricted and arbitrary powers to the Central government to encroach the jurisdiction of the States, it was contended.The other points of law the PIL sought to address was if the notification was illegal and a colourable exercise of powers by the Central government, and prejudices the public at large. Banerjee mentioned that the notification disturbs federalism, creates an imbalance in the distribution of power between Centre and States, and has no nexus or material satisfaction with the objectives provided in the Act.Further, the plea highlighted how the Chief Minister of Punjab had pointed out on social media that the States which would be affected by this move, were not taken into confidence by the Centre before the notification was issued. The notification is illegal, colourable exercise of legislation by the Centre and prejudices the public at large, it was submitted.The petition therefore sought quashing of Section 139(1) as unconstitutional besides praying for setting aside the October 11 notification.The petition was filed through advocate Sabyasachi Chatterjee..[Read Order]