New Delhi, March 20: Union home minister P Chidambaram was instrumental in the setting up of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) post 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, but he was — as claimed by WikiLeaks cables — not very sure whether it would pass muster of courts.
The cables, published in a newspaper on Saturday, revealed that Chidambaram had confided to a senior US official that the powers of the NIA could be challenged in the courts as violating constitutional provisions on Centre-state relations.
The NIA was set up by an Act of Parliament in January 2009. However, just two months after the agency came into being, Chidambaram told the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director, Robert Mueller, that NIA did not have enough legal protection as its powers could be challenged in the court for violating constitutional provisions on Centre-state relations, the newspaper said quoting a secret US embassy cable dated March 4, 2009.
During a meeting in New Delhi on March 3, 2009, Chidambaram confided to Mueller that the NIA was a “new weapon in hand to combat terrorism” but its constitutionality was doubtful.
As per the Act, NIA has the powers to take suo motu any terror related case for probe without taking the concerned state on board. Earlier, the Centre had to take the consent of the state before getting a case probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Offences related to acts of terrorism like hijacking, bomb blasts, attacks on nuclear installations and any other deemed as challenging India’s sovereignty and integrity come under the purview of NIA Act.
“[Mr Chidambaram] conceded that he was coming ‘perilously close to crossing constitutional limits’ in empowering the NIA. He explained the concept of a ‘federal’ crime does not exist in India, with law and order the responsibility of the state governments,” charge d’affaires Steven White said in the cable about the meeting.
Chidambaram had during the meeting “opined that the NIA law would be challenged in court because it ascribes certain investigating powers to NIA which may be seen to conflict with responsibility that is exclusively with the states”.
–Agencies