Every tragic terrorist attack, such as the one in Delhi last week, is followed by the same debate. It was a failure of India’s intelligence agencies, one side insists. There was no intelligence failure, the other side retorts.

But efforts are now on to make intelligence agencies more accountable. If the recently proposed Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, 2011, gets a nod from Parliament, there will be a law to regulate the functioning and powers of Indian intelligence agencies.

The agencies include the Intelligence Bureau (IB), in charge of internal intelligence, the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), which deals with external intelligence, and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), which handles technical intelligence.

Introduced as a private member’s bill by Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari in the monsoon session of Parliament, the bill seeks to provide better co-ordination, control and parliamentary oversight of such agencies.

Tewari believes lack of a legal framework hampers the work of these agencies. At a recent seminar where the bill was being debated, he said it would include a structured mechanism for the oversight of intelligence agencies.

The national intelligence and security oversight committee will be headed by the chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Members will include the Lok Sabha Speaker, the home minister, the leader of the Opposition, a member each from the two houses of Parliament and the cabinet secretary.

But intelligence experts are not very happy with the provision of the oversight committee. “A committee should ensure that the charter of operation laid out for the agencies has been fulfilled. The nitty gritty of the operations should not be discussed,” feels former R&AW chief Anand Verma.

Some experts believe that an oversight committee will not increase the efficiency of the intelligence agencies in any way. “Instead, it will debilitate the heads of the organisations as they will be scrutinised so thoroughly. We already have a clear charter of responsibilities being drawn by the Kargil review committee report and none of the intelligence agencies has crossed the line so far. So why should we draw out another set of charter of functions by a new law,” asks another former R&AW chief C.D. Sahay.

Experts also feel that intelligence agencies should have the freedom to function effectively. “Agencies should be given enough space to operate,” says former IB joint director Maloy Krishna Dhar.

Strategic experts are also apprehensive about the composition of the committee. “It should have experts who can deal with intelligence. Its members should also be accountable to Parliament,” says A.B. Mahapatra, director of the Centre for Asian Strategic Studies, an independent defence research organisation.

This bill is inspired by similar legal mechanisms for intelligence agencies that exist worldwide. Former home secretary G.K. Pillai says many other countries, including the US and Britain, follow a similar process of oversight. “The CIA of the US is answerable to the Senate Select Intelligence committee whereas the Secret Intelligence Service in the UK is accountable to the House of Commons. But these committees do not meddle with the operational procedures of the agencies. We should also have a similar mechanism in place,” Pillai says.

Under another provision, the bill seeks to put an end to intelligence agencies being used for gathering information at the behest of the party in power. The agencies, it says, should not “take any action that furthers the interests of any political party or coalition or other such interest groups.”

That, indeed, would usher in change. In his book Open Secrets — India’s Intelligence Unveiled Dhar says that when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, her office had assigned him the task of spying on Zail Singh, then the home minister. Dhar carried out the assignment and gave a report that went directly to the Prime Minister.

“Around 10 to 15 per cent of the work of these agencies involves gathering political intelligence. So once they are debarred from doing so, they can focus on terrorism and internal security,” Pillai says.

But he stresses that such bodies should be allowed to gather internal information if any issue threatens to paralyse the functioning of the country. “But this should not be done at the cost of internal security. They should stop spying on trade unions or political parties unless there is serious threat to the country,” he adds.

Dhar, however, believes that sometimes gathering political intelligence is necessary for national security. “In sensitive areas such as Manipur or Assam or Kashmir, it is important to keep tabs on political leaders for national security.”

Another point of debate is the power that the bill bestows on the Prime Minister. “It is a faulty provision. For the appointment of the R&AW chief, possible names of experienced people should be forwarded to the oversight committee by the cabinet secretariat for selection. This should not be an arbitrary power given to the PM,” says Dhar. “For the IB chief’s appointment, for instance, the home minister should consult with the PM about appointing the senior-most IB officer as director.”

Experts are also against the provision that says intelligence chiefs shall submit a bi-annual report on their work and their accounts to the Prime Minister.

But former IB chief Arun Bhagat says that such assessment of the service of these agencies would improve their efficiency. “If the work is scrutinised, one becomes more efficient,” says Bhagat.

The former director general of Border Security Force, E.N. Rammohan, believes that with the Opposition leader being inducted into the oversight committee, the ruling party cannot use the agencies in its favour. “This makes the process transparent. But it is not practical to make these agencies accountable to the PM,” he says.

The other salient feature in the bill is the setting up of a National Intelligence Tribunal for the investigation of complaints against these agencies. “At present, cases go to civil courts where the aggrieved parties don’t get a patient hearing. This tribunal would at least hear them now,” says Mahapatra.

Dhar, however, differs. “Most of the agents are under cover and are disowned by their agencies for national security. It is practically impossible to address their grievances as it exposes the activities of the agencies.”

Verma points out that the bill does not look at provisions that would boost the competence of these agencies. “We need a stronger law that makes these bodies autonomous in administrative issues such as selection and promotion. The law should have some provision on how to attract the best brains,” he says.

But a senior home ministry official is all for the bill. “It is about time we had such a bill. Intelligence agencies of most democratic countries are being made responsible with such laws and India should do so too,” he says.

This bill is likely to be debated in the winter session of Parliament. “In the history of the Indian Constitution, no private member’s bill has been accepted ever. So, one has to see how things turn out for this one,” says Verma.