August 25, 2006: Multiple blasts in Hyderabad claim more than 40 lives. The police hold a terror group based in Bangladesh responsible for the blasts. Status: Despite a few arrests, the AP police is yet to file a charge sheet.

February 18, 2007: Two bomb blasts take place on the Lahore-bound Samjhauta Express, approaching Panipat, Haryana. It took the Haryana Police almost a month to make the initial arrests, after investigating in five different states. Status: There has been no progress since then. Despite the Central government’s request to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Haryana government has been dragging its feet.

By now, of course, the actual perpetrators of the crime on the Samjhauta Express may have slipped away to safer places and may be planning to launch future attacks. The fact is that when it comes to investigating terror-related cases, the police in various states don’t have the ability and facilities to tackle them, especially when it involves the co-operation of other states and, sometimes, countries.

Looking at this inadequacy and to speed up the process of prevention and investigation, the Union home ministry wants to set up a central agency to investigate cases of terrorism, organised crime, acts that threaten national security, narcotics, cyber crimes, counterfeit currency and others that are trans-border in nature. The Central Law Enforcement Agency or the Federal Investigation Agency, according to the home ministry, will collect intelligence, and co-ordinate and investigate serious cases that have national and international ramifications.

Although the advent of the new agency may not require changes in any existing laws, the state police will not be able to investigate “federal crimes” that are committed within their states.

The states have long opposed any kind of change when it comes to the police and public order, which are state subjects under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. They argue that any change would amount to tinkering with the federal structure of the Indian Constitution, thereby weakening it.

But the recent spate of terrorist attacks and lack of co-ordination among various agencies has forced the states to at least acknowledge the need for an organisation on the lines proposed by the central government. But serious differences persist on the composition of such an organisation.

This was more than evident at the recently held meeting of the consultative committee of the ministry of home affairs in Delhi, where members of Parliament from different states voiced their opinions.

“All states have yet to respond to the home ministry’s proposal, but I think there is a broad consensus on the need for a federal agency to handle terror-related and other cases. But I believe that this agency should play the role of a co-ordinator rather than the primary investigating agency,” says D. Raja, MP, Communist Party of India, and one of the members of the parliamentary committee.

“When it comes to law and order, the states have always been wary of involving the Centre, but the situation has now changed. The nature of crimes committed today are beyond the comprehension of any police force in the country. Hence we need a separate agency,” says N.R. Madhava Menon, chairman of the Committee on Criminal Justice System, which recommended the setting up of a joint mechanism.

Menon’s committee had said, “The time has come when the country has to give a deep thought to building a system of federal law and a federal investigating agency with an all-India charter.” According to Menon, states will not be suspicious of the Centre if it is a joint effort.

Since the CBI has the expertise and the experience, some argue that providing it a statutory status to handle inter-state crimes of serious nature can solve the problem to some extent.

“The first 24-48 hours in any incident is crucial. And when the state police try to investigate something they are not equipped to handle, it becomes difficult even for an organisation like the CBI to take over the case and trace the culprits,” says Mukta Gupta, CBI counsel in many high-profile cases. Gupta says that if the CBI is given additional powers to directly deal with serious cases, solving them will become a lot easier.

Even the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), headed by former chief minister of Karnataka Veerappa Moily, had recommended the setting up of a separate wing within the CBI to handle the new category of crimes. “There is a need to re-examine certain offences which have inter-state or national ramifications and include them in a new law. The law should also prescribe the procedure for investigation and trial of such offences,” it said.

“We examined how the federal agencies worked in various countries like the US and Australia and then concluded that CBI could be given the task, with all the safeguards in place to take care of the concerns of the states,” says Moily.

But the CBI is viewed with suspicion. “Many states don’t consider the CBI to be an autonomous body. A state government of an opposition party is quite justified in believing that the CBI could be used to embarrass it,” says K. Malaisamy, MP, AIADMK, and a member of the consultative committee of the home ministry.

“There is also the question of the states objecting to their powers being taken away by a central agency and to concentration of power at the Centre, which is not a great idea for a federal system like ours,” says A.P. Mukherjee, a former director of the CBI, former director general of the West Bengal Police and a member of the ARC.

According to a Union home ministry official, a way out could be a clear definition of federal crimes. “Once the Centre and states agree on a certain set of crimes as being federal in nature, we can sit together and evolve a consensus on the terms on which the new organisation will operate,” says the official.

One of the members of the consultative committee, Lalmingliana, MP from Mizoram, suggests that new federal crimes be kept in the concurrent list of the Constitution. “That probably will give the states some confidence, but the basic thing is the definition of federal crimes,” he says.

“We recognise that the existing law is inadequate and we need a new mechanism. But for this to happen, every state in the country should be convinced that the set up will be completely autonomous and, more important, accountable,” says Malaisamy.

But Mukherjee feels that as long as the state and the Centre are “dishonest” about police reforms, nothing can be achieved. “The states have been coming up with one excuse or another before the Supreme Court on the implementation of the Police Reforms Commission. If these reforms are implemented, the police will become more professional and they can sit with other law enforcement agencies and discuss an effective system to tackle problems,” he says. “Setting up more organisations will lead to more confusion, obfuscating the real purpose of the mechanism,” argues Mukherjee.

One thing is for sure. Unless the Centre and state governments reach a consensus on a strong organisation to tackle new age crimes that have national and international footprints, criminals will have the liberty to strike at will.

“The time for action is now, even if it means a marginal erosion of state powers in the larger interest of the citizens of the country,” says Malaisamy.