The model for the proposed agency was the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States. Unlike the Central Bureau of Investigation in India, the FBI does not require the permission of state governments to investigate a specified list of crimes. For these, it has the independence to investigate and collect intelligence as it sees fit.

Patil endorsed the note and said that the matter should be deliberated in Parliament and with state governments. Thereafter, the issue was referred to the Centre-state commission as law and order is a state subject, and as often happens, lost urgency.

Interestingly, the Justice V.S. Malimath Committee on Police and Criminal Justice reform in 2003, set up by the then home minister, L.K. Advani, had supported the idea of a federal agency by giving the Centre concurrent jurisdiction on the following categories of crime: terrorist activities/war against the state; arms and drug trafficking; hijacking; money laundering; crimes related to counterfeit currency; espionage and crimes targeting national infrastructure. Justice Malimath’s report, in fact, argued in favour of the setting up of a special federal crimes court as the committee believed that cases relating to underworld crimes/criminals were complex and that these criminals had access to the best legal defence available. It sought Central legislation on the pattern of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999.

But it’s not just the Centre. State governments too, cutting across party lines, view it as an encroachment on their domain and a blatant violation of the federal structure. The rise of regional parties has ensured that national issues are largely sacrificed on the altar of local political considerations. Last December, both the prime minister and the home minister faced serious opposition after they mooted the idea of the federal agency in meetings on internal security with chief ministers. The chief ministers, in fact, wanted their own state police forces strengthened (that is, given access to more Central funds) and trained to tackle terrorism and the underworld rather than have the Centre “impose its authority” through a new agency. Their argument was that even today the states seek investigation by the CBI if and when desired and thus there was no need for a new federal agency. One could not have argued against this if the CBI had not stood accused of being a political tool of the party in power at the Centre. The same is the case with the Intelligence Bureau, which today picks more political intelligence than that related to terrorist groups.

... contd.