बेबाक · Editorial
Gangs Cross Borders, Agencies Must Stay Within the Law: Two Tests of Indian Enforcement
India is getting better at chasing organised crime across borders. It must be just as careful that its agencies act only within the powers the law gives them.
What has happened
Several recent stories point to the same problem. Harichand Jat, known as Hari Boxer and wanted in 22 criminal cases in Rajasthan, has been detained in the United States. That followed a multi-country investigation involving Indian and international agencies, according to reports describing him as an aide of Lawrence Bishnoi. In Mumbai, an investigation by Mumbai Police found that operatives from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang spent about a month near actor Aamir Khan's Bandra residence and carried out reconnaissance on three separate occasions before a shooting incident linked to the Tiger Shroff case. Separately, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate is not a 'super cop'. Organised crime is growing more capable, and so is the state's reach. Both now need watching.
The core tension
The tension is old, but it is sharper now. Citizens want a state that can find a fugitive in another country and stop a gang before it fires. They also want a state that stays inside its legal powers when the target is a fellow citizen. The Karnataka High Court said the Enforcement Directorate cannot file a private complaint when other agencies decline to act on information it has passed to them. On that ground it quashed the agency's cases against the sitting legislator from Malur. The ruling does not weaken the fight against crime. It says that enforcement must have a lawful basis, not just enthusiasm.
Both sides, fairly
The case for wider enforcement is serious. Criminal networks can operate across states and borders faster than case files move between police stations. When one agency holds credible information and another declines to act on it, frustration is understandable. A gang that can watch a Bandra home for about a month raises hard questions about intelligence and coordination. The case for restraint is just as serious. An agency that can bring cases whenever others decline becomes a law unto itself. Its powers would then depend on its own reading of the law, not on what Parliament wrote. In politically charged cases, that risk falls on every citizen, not only the accused.
What the evidence shows
The record supports neither panic nor complacency. The Hari Boxer detention shows what cooperation between Indian and international agencies can achieve against a fugitive facing 22 cases. The Mumbai Police findings show the same network spending weeks on reconnaissance, which raises the question of whether the warning signs could have been seen earlier. The Supreme Court made a related point in another context. It declined to order 'full public disclosure' of the ultimate beneficiaries of alternative investment funds and foreign portfolio investors without a 'legal framework'. It also asked why the petitioner, a Member of Parliament, wanted to file a public interest petition under Article 32 when she could raise the issue in Parliament. Taken together, these rulings point in the same direction: transparency and enforcement must rest on a clear legal basis.
Our verdict
Indian enforcement is improving in reach but not yet in discipline. Tracking fugitives and gangs deserves credit, and the agencies that did it deserve recognition. Courts will keep striking down cases built on improvised procedure. When they do, they are not weakening enforcement. They are protecting its credibility. Every case quashed for lack of a legal basis wastes investigators' time, the public's money and trust in the system. The rule of law has to apply to the gangster in a foreign holding cell, to the legislator facing a complaint, and to the agency that files it.
The way forward
Three steps are achievable. First, the Union and state governments should set up formal, time-bound protocols for sharing information between agencies. Information passed by the Enforcement Directorate to another agency should then get a recorded response within a fixed period, which would remove any excuse for private complaints. Second, the international cooperation behind the Hari Boxer detention should become standing practice against organised-crime networks, not a one-off success. Third, Parliament should take up the question the Supreme Court pointed it towards. It should consider a clear legal framework for disclosing the ultimate beneficiaries of alternative investment funds and foreign portfolio investors. Clear powers and clear limits would make enforcement both stronger and fairer.
A republic that hunts gangsters across continents must also stop its own agencies from writing their own powers.
What this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
An editorial is the considered opinion of the Aad Tak desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions, not parties. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →