Bhubaneswar, Feb. 13: Odisha chief minister Naveen Patnaik today hit out at the Centre for vesting the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) constituted under the Intelligence Bureau with powers that infringe on the authority of states in the matters of investigation and maintenance of law and order.

In a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the chief minister said the memorandum issued by the Union home ministry on February 3 detailing the powers and functions of NCTC had made it clear that its officers would have the authority to arrest and conduct searches without consulting the state governments.

Pointing out that going by the memorandum all authorities including the functionaries of the state government would be obliged to provide information including documents and reports to the NCTC, the chief minister said this was a clear violation of the federal spirit of the Constitution.

He felt that the Centre should have consulted the states before making such a move.

“Would it not have been advisable for the Union government to have prior consultation with the state governments? This clearly seems to be an infringement on the federal structure of states as enshrined in the Constitution of India,” the chief minister’s letter said.

Urging the Prime Minister to review the order with “Draconian overtones,” the letter said: “The people of our nation are aware of their democratic and federal rights, which at times have to be underlined by state governments to the central government. After all the price of democratic freedom is eternal vigilance. It would seem that the UPA government, at times, knowingly or unknowingly, infringes on those federal rights.”

This, incidentally, is not the first instance of the Odisha chief minister crossing swords with the Centre over an important issue. Last year he had taken a tough stand against the Indian Port Bill, 2011, which proposed to give the Centre jurisdiction over state-developed ports.

Naveen had written letters to chief ministers of nine coastal states urging them to oppose the provisions of the Bill which, he felt, would encroach upon the rights of states in determining the boundaries of ports developed by them as well as in port management and functioning.