New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is under the administrative control of the central government, the Supreme Court held Wednesday as it declared that West Bengal’s suit before it, disputing the agency’s jurisdiction to register criminal cases in the state without its consent, is maintainable.
In the suit, the state challenged the CBI’s power to probe 12 cases related to offences that allegedly took place within the territory of West Bengal.
According to the state, it had revoked its general consent under the law and that before registering the cases, the CBI should have sought its consent.
In response, the central government raised a preliminary objection to the suit, contending the CBI was an independent agency and not controlled by it. It, therefore, sought the dismissal of the suit at the threshold, arguing that it was not maintainable. The top court, however, held the CBI was under the administrative control of the central government.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta rejected the central government’s contention that West Bengal’s suit should not be heard and said the dispute raised by the state would be adjudicated by it.
Upon perusing the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, the law that governs the functioning and administration of CBI, the court opined that only those offences which are notified by the Centre in an official gazette can be investigated by the department.
It declared that from its constitution as a special police force to its superintendence, administration and extension of the agency’s jurisdiction to areas beyond the Union Territories, the central government was vitally concerned with all aspects of the federal body, except supervising the investigation.
According to the statutory scheme under the DSPE, the court said, the CBI’s powers over any other state could not be done without the consent of that state government.
“We further find that the very establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, the superintendence of the DSPE, all vest with the Government of India,” the bench held, as it rejected all grounds of objections raised by the CBI.
The judgement essentially means that the court would now proceed to hear West Bengal’s suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, which it has filed challenging the CBI’s move to register cases in the state. It would subsequently determine whether the CBI could have initiated those cases.
Article 131 provides for independent adjudication in case of federal disputes that can either be between two states or a state and the central government. These disputes generally relate to questions of law or fact on which the existence or extent of the respective legal rights depends.
The West Bengal government instituted its suit in the top court in 2021, almost a year after the CBI took up a probe of 12 corruption cases for offences, which according to the state, fell within its territorial jurisdiction. It invoked various constitutional provisions to argue that the state had the exclusive power over public order and police.
If the power or jurisdiction of members of any other police force needed to be extended to a state, then the same could be done only with the consent of that particular state government. “Public order and police are exclusive subject matters of the concerned state,” the suit submitted, adding the Constitution ensured that the central government did not transgress into the jurisdiction of the state without its permission.
In support of its contention that the CBI was under the administrative supervision of the Centre and, therefore the suit was legally maintainable, West Bengal quoted provisions from the DSPE Act. It also cited Section 6 of the law that expressly stated that the CBI was required to obtain consent from the concerned state where it intended to assume its jurisdiction to register and investigate a criminal case.
Section 6, West Bengal added, was a statutory recognition of the principle of federalism, which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Hence, it was significant and the CBI could not ignore it.
Also read: ‘Peddles govt propaganda, misreports’ — ANI’s Wiki page pushes news agency to sue Wikimedia
West Bengal, the suit contended, gave limited consent to the CBI to investigate certain offences pertaining to persons who were not employed with the state. This deemed consent remained valid between August 1989 and November 2018. Thereafter, to probe any offence in the state, the CBI ought to have obtained prior and specific sanction, which was not done.
Providing a list of the 12 cases registered after November 2018, West Bengal pointed out that the matters were registered either under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and that both offences fell within the state’s jurisdiction.
“The action of the defendant (CBI) is an act of constitutional overreach in as much as by registering cases within the State of West Bengal in absence of the consent of the Plaintiff, the Defendant has exceeded its jurisdiction and has acted contrary to the scheme of Constitution and DSPE statute,” the suit read.
To recall, several of these corruption cases named leaders from Trinamool Congress (TMC) – the ruling party of West Bengal – and their registration had also led to a probe under the anti-money-laundering offence by the Enforcement Directorate. Some have filed individual petitions in the top court, challenging the CBI’s action.
In its opposition to the suit, the central government claimed the agency was not under its control. Hence, it argued, no cause of action has been made out against it in the suit. All relief sought in the petition, including declaration of the cases being unconstitutional or issuing a restraint order against registration of fresh FIRs, were related to the CBI, it suggested.
“It is submitted that the cases referred to in the plaint are registered at the instance of the CBI and the Union of India has no role to play. It is submitted that, though the reliefs are claimed against the CBI, it has not been made a party to the suit and that this has been rightly done inasmuch as if the CBI was made a party, the suit would not have been maintainable under Article 131,” the central government told the court.
Arguing there was no factual basis to file the suit, the central government sought its dismissal. Further, it said, individual petitions filed in the top court seeking relief against the CBI raised similar grounds as in the suit. Moreover, the responsibility of superintendence over the CBI’s functioning has been entrusted with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which is an independent body appointed by an independent collegium. The central government also submitted that the top court too had emphasised that the CBI has to be viewed as a non-partisan agency.
In the court’s finding, superintendence of CBI in all other matters, except superintendence of investigation, vested with the central government. Its administration, as per the DSPE Act, also vested “in an officer appointed in this behalf by the central government,” who in terms of the law exercised the power specified by the central government.
Acknowledging that powers of superintendence of the central government would not relate to the superintendence of investigation of a particular case, the court said the same would not “water down the administrative control and superintendence” of CBI that lies with the central government.
The court agreed with the West Bengal government’s explanation that there was a cause of action to file the suit. It observed that as per the state’s allegations, the CBI had committed a constitutional overreach and it was a dispute to be looked into by the top court under Article 131 of the Constitution.
On a cumulative analysis of the law dealing with CBI’s administrative control and West Bengal’s allegations, the court said: “It is well settled that when differences arise between the representative of the State and that of the Union on questions of interpretation of the Constitution and law which may affect the welfare of the whole people and particularly that of the people of the State concerned, a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution lies.”
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also read: After 16 years, SC comes to rescue of visually impaired CSE 2008 candidates, directs appointment