IB without a statute!

Chennai, Mar 26, 2012(TNN): Responding to a PIL filed by a retired Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer pointing at the complete absence of constitutional or statutory sanction for the agency, the Karnataka high court last week sought an explanation from the Centre, giving it time until March 30 to issue an executive order justifying IB’s existence.

IB has remained like a ghost, without a statute, all these 125 years.

The IB was formed on December 23, 1887, by the then British secretary of state as a sub-sect of the Central Special Branch. “It has remained like a ghost, without a statute, all these 125 years,”said the PIL filed by Mysore-based R N Kulkarni, who joined the IB in 1963 and retired in 1998 as its joint assistant director.

Kulkarni further told the court that despite being a vital arm of national intelligence and security, all that the IB has to explain for its evolution over the past 125 years is the British order issued in 1887. Neither the Indian Independence nor the adoption of a Constitution nor even regulatory statutes for Central police organizations like the CRPF and CISF ever accorded any legal status to the IB, which exists in a constitutional vacuum.

In its response, the Centre said the IB is a civilian organization which does not enjoy police powers. It also admitted that on May 21, 2001, a group of ministers had acknowledged that IB did not have a formal charter, although an attempt was made to define its functioning.

Taking note of the absence of a legislation to regulate the IB, the court asked the Centre to issue an executive order defining the powers, functions and duties of IB officers immediately. Otherwise, the bench headed by the chief justice cautioned, that the court would be constrained to constitute a committee to go into the issue and submit a report.

“How can the IB, established under an administrative order without any constitutional or statutory identity even after the commencement of the Constitution in 1950, be permitted to function as an apex national security apparatus,” questioned Kulkarni’s PIL. This extra-constitutional status infringes upon the rights of citizens as well as those serving in the IB, the PIL added.

The closest that the IB ever came to have a rule was in 1985 when Parliament enacted the Intelligence Organizations (Restriction of Rights) But Parliament failed to legislate for IB’s establishment, regulation, discipline, control or operations, the PIL said.

source : http://tkbsen.com