There has been a lot of discussion off late about the ‘limited mandate’ being given to the Centre to interfere in the Maoist insurgency in the country. Recently, the Attorney General gave an opinion stating that the powers and circumstances in the fifth schedule of the constitution may allow the Centre to interfere. The fifth schedule of the Constitution is mainly a chapter intended to secure the rights of the tribal population to their land and culture and gives the Governor (Centre) the power to interfere. The implementation of the Schedule itself is described as a failure as the Governments openly violate the mandate and displace the tribals. See Samatha v. State of AP. Surprisingly then, the Government wishes to implement the Schedule to justify interference in a war.
The main argument as to why the Centre says it cannot interfere is because ‘Law and Order’ is a state subject and thus only the states may deal with the situation. The Centre may only provide support in terms of forces etc, but the insurgency is to be fought on the directions of the State itself. Rather than once again making a mockery of the fifth schedule, the Attorney General should have perhaps thought of a different approach as stated below.
The approach derives its reasoning from the decision in Kartar Singh v. Union of India. One of the contentions in the dispute was that since law and order was a state subject only the State could frame a law on terrorism and thus the TADA lacked competency. The Court however rejected the same. It stated that the entry ‘defence of India’ in List I pertains not only to acts affecting the external sovereignty of the country but also its internal sovereignty. The Act, in its ‘pith and substance’ falls under this entry as terrorism affects India’s internal sovereignty. Thus, the Centre could frame such a law and was competent to frame the TADA.
Further cases on terrorism (eg. PUCL v. Union of India ) have upheld this argument.
In line of the above ruling, the Centre probably doesn’t have a ‘limited mandate’ as it claims. The situation is probably way different. The Government can easily state Maoists to be a threat to the internal sovereignty of the country and justify its interference.
For the record, I don’t believe in armed attacks to tackle the dispute. This post is mainly aimed at pointing out the flaw in the statements of the Home Minister.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Union Home Minister was referring to the ,, Limited Political Mandate……We all know the Centre can step in anywhere and in anytime……….