This is the research analysis of
Perry4Law
and
Perry4Law
Techno Legal Base (PTLB) regarding the legality,
constitutionality, requirements, etc of establishment of national
counter terrorism centre of India. Perry4Law and PTLB have outlined
all the legal constitutional and administrative issues at a single
place so that parliament of India, home ministry and Indian
government can consider the same. Perry4Law and PTLB hope that this
analysis would be useful for all concerned.
National
counter terrorism centre (NCTC) of India has been facing
many ups and downs. This is despite the fact that
national
counter terrorism centre (NCTC) of India is required to
meet the growing national security requirements of India.
However,
there are many constitutional, legal and administrative challenges
that NCTC is facing. In the past the
NCTC
of India was downsized in its nature, scope and functions.
Now
NCTC
of India is facing stiff oppositions from various States
that consider establishment of NCTC as an encroachment upon their law
and enforcement powers and federalism features of Indian
constitution.
However, these objections and oppositions are
mostly politically motivated and are not truly striking at the real
problem from which NCTC has been suffering. The real issue that must
be demanded by political parties is that
parliamentary
oversight of intelligence agencies of India is needed.
Till now there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence
agencies in India.
Indian Government is too reluctant to
ensure
parliamentary
oversight for intelligence agencies and law enforcement
agencies of India. If this is not enough, Indian government has been
launching new projects having serious “constitutional
ramifications” and “
civil
liberties violation” effects.
For instance, the
national counter terrorism centre (NCTC) project of India,
national
intelligence grid (Natgrid) project of India,
Aadhar
project of India,
crime
and criminal tracking network and system (CCTNS), etc are
not governed by any legal framework and parliamentary oversight.
Indian government is not willing to understand and accept that
intelligence
work is not an excuse for non accountability.
For
some strange reasons intelligence infrastructure of India has become
synonymous for
non
accountability and
mess.
There is neither any parliamentary oversight nor and
transparency
and accountability of the working of intelligence agencies
of India.
Even a basic level effort to enact a legal framework
for intelligence agencies of India is missing in India. The first and
foremost challenge to such parliamentary oversight mechanism comes
from the intelligence agencies themselves that do not wish to be
governed by any rules and norms at all. Then we have “bureaucratic
hurdles” in India that do not allow such a legal framework to be
proceeded with. Finally, the parliament of India itself is not
interested in bringing these intelligence agencies within the fold of
parliamentary oversight.
Take the example of the recent
private bill titled
intelligence
services (powers and regulation) bill, 2011. It was
shelved out by none other than the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan
Singh who
announced
that law on intelligence agencies would be formulated soon. However,
it proved nothing but a “time gaining tactics” and so far
intelligence agencies of India are not governed by any legal
framework and parliamentary oversight. Interestingly, even the
central bureau of investigation (CBI) is riding the same boat. The
draft
central bureau of investigation act, 2010 is another
example where the Indian government is just interested in making
“declaration” with no actual “intention” to implement the
same.
In these circumstances, can the States trust the Centre
regarding the establishment of National Counter Terrorism Centre
(NCTC) of India? The answer is definitely negative even if States
keep their “political interests” aside. Of course, there are
“
practical
difficulties” and “internal turf war” among various
agencies and ministries of Central government a well. It seems the
obvious
but unsolvable terrorism dilemma in India would continue
as national interest of India and fighting terrorism is not a
“national priority”.
Till now the
constitutionality
of the national investigation agency act 2008 (NIAA 2008)
has not been accepted by States and now NCTC has been launched
through an “executive order”. The practice of clubbing new
projects, agencies and institutions with existing laws is a bad
approach. So NCTC without a legal framework is definitely
unconstitutional and even tagging it with the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 would not save it from the patent and apparent
unconstitutionality with which it is suffering.
The NCTC
project of India is also “very significant” for the national
security of India. Terrorist attacks against India are on increase
and we need a “specilaised institution” like NCTC to provide and
analyse valuable intelligence inputs and leads.
The real
problem seems to be “lack of coordination and harmonisation”
between the Centre and States. The Constitution of India has made a
clear demarcation between the legislative, executive and judicial
powers of Centre and State. The NIAA 2008 and NCTC are sitting at the
“border line” of the legislative and executive powers of Centre
that can be challenged by various States.
The intentions of
Home Minister of India are good but the concerns of States are also
of equal force. Further, the turf war between multiple intelligence
agencies operating under different government ministries is also
causing problem for the successful establishment of NCTC. Even there
is a lack of proper planning and management on the part of Union Home
Ministry that is causing delayed implementation of projects like
Natgrid, NCTC, CCTNS, etc.
If the Home Minister really wants
his projects to become successful, he has to think well beyond the
present “parameters and objectives” set by Indian government in
general his own ministry in particular. A good starting point can be
formulation of a “constitutionally sound legal framework” that
can confer legitimacy and constitutionality to projects like NATGRID,
NCTC, CCTNS, etc. Obviously, States must be taken into confidence
before starting any such legislative exercise.
This must be
supplemented by sound planning and management. The projects of Home
Ministry are neither simple nor easy to execute. They required
dedicated efforts from all directions. Experts from diverse fields
must be on panel of Home Ministry so that these Projects can be
successfully implemented. We are sure Home Minister would have
already considered these aspects and we wish all the best to him in
this regard.