http://147.208.132.198/onlineCDA/PFVersion.jsp?article=http://10.81.141.122/
news/181_1891652,000900010004.htm

 


'CBI should not be given terrorism cases'

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, January 7, 2007


The Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Uttar Pradesh Government, which finally ordered
a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the serial killing of
children in Nithari village near Noida, has opposed the suggestion of
entrusting to the CBI cases relating to international terrorism or organised
crimes.

In its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Uttar Pradesh Government
said "such an automatic entrustment of the investigation to the Central
Bureau of Investigation would be contrary to the federal structure of the
Indian Constitution."

The affidavit has been filed in response to the court's September 22, 2006
order on police reforms.

Terming it as "useful" the court had asked the National Human Rights
Commission, Sorabjee Committee and Bureau of Police Research and Development
to examine the suggestion made by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of
former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh. It was on Singh's PIL that the court
passed the order on police reforms.

Bhushan had suggested that cases relating to international terrorism and
organised crimes like drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling of
weapons and counterfeiting of currency and activities of mafia groups be
treated as measures taken for the 'defence of India' and as 'internal
security measures' under Article 355 of the Constitution.

He had further suggested that such cases involving international or
inter-state ramifications should be entrusted to the CBI.

Under the present constitutional scheme, law and order is a 'State Subject'
and a case cannot to assigned for investigation to the CBI, a central
agency, without the consent of the state government concerned. Unlike the US
India does not have a concept of federal crime.

The court has not issued any directions as yet in this regard but the state
government, which opposed the court's order on police reforms, chose to make
it abundantly clear that it was against any such move. Other states have not
responded to the suggestion so far.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to