IB seeks law to define its role clearly

IB officials want law to protect them from legal hassles. An IB official is under the lens in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, Rajesh Ahuja reports.

Waiting eagerly for the outcome of Tuesday's questioning of Rajinder Kumar by the CBI in connection with the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, IB officials want a separate law defining the responsibilities and accountabilities of an IB officer.

HT Image

Scheduled to be questioned in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, Kumar, a special director with the IB, was called again after the first round of examination on May 31.

"How far should we go to make an intelligence input reach its logical conclusion? I am not saying the police should bump off terror suspects in fake encounters but suppose I tell my counterpart in the state police about a terror suspect and they by design or accident kill the suspect, should I also be held responsible for it?" asked a senior IB official.

"There is need to bring some kind of legislation to clearly define go or no-go areas for an intelligence official to protect him or her from future legal hassles," the official said.

The CBI is probing the alleged encounter of Mumbai girl and alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) fidayeen Ishrat Jahan along with her three associates - Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjad Ali Rana and Jeeshan Johar - on June 15, 2004 in Ahmedabad.

Kumar, who has been accused of being part of the conspiracy, has denied the charge, saying his role was limited to the generation of an intelligence input only.

The 7th schedule of the Constitution provides for establishment of a 'Central Intelligence Bureau' by an act of the parliament. But it hasn't happened so far.