• UGI USER
  • Jul 15, 2024
  • 8 Likes
  • 0 Comments

ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE CBI

Syllabus:

GS 2:

  • Posts, Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.
  • Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial Bodies.

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court recently upheld the maintainability of West Bengal’s suit against the Union government, challenging the CBI’s investigations in the state despite the withdrawal of general consent. This ruling highlights ongoing tensions between the Centre and states over the jurisdiction and autonomy of the CBI.

Source: Disc

Jurisdiction of the CBI

  • Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld West Bengal’s claim that the Union government overreached by using the CBI to investigate despite the state’s withdrawal of consent.
  • CBI Control: The Court ruled that the CBI operates under the Government of India, rejecting claims that it is an independent agency.
  • DSPE Act Provisions: The Bench highlighted that the establishment, powers, and jurisdiction of the CBI all fall under the purview of the Union government.
  • Merits Hearing: The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of West Bengal’s suit, setting the next hearing for August 13.
  • State Withdrawal: West Bengal withdrew its general consent for CBI investigations in November 2018, impacting the agency’s jurisdiction in the state.
  • Union’s Preliminary Objections: The Centre’s objections to the suit were dismissed, emphasizing the need to hear the case on its merits.
About Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

  • Premier Agency: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is India’s leading investigative police agency.
  • Assistance Role: It supports the Central Vigilance Commission and Lokpal.
  • Supervision: Functions under the Department of Personnel, Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Public Grievances, within the Prime Minister’s office.
  • Corruption Cases: For Prevention of Corruption Act offences, it operates under the Central Vigilance Commission.
  • International Coordination: Acts as the nodal police agency coordinating investigations for Interpol Member countries.
  • High Conviction Rate: Boasts a conviction rate of 65-70%, comparable to top global investigation agencies.

Historical Background

  • World War II Origin: Originated in 1941 as the Special Police Establishment (SPE) to address bribery and corruption in war-related procurements.
  • Formalization: Formalized under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, to investigate corruption in various government wings.
  • Non-Statutory: Not a statutory body; derives investigative powers from the DSPE Act, 1946.
  • Santhanam Committee: Recommended by the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962–1964).
  • Establishment: Founded in 1963 by the Government of India to probe serious crimes including defense, high-level corruption, fraud, and social crimes like hoarding and black-marketing.
  • Expanded Role: Over time, extended to investigating conventional crimes such as assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, and extremist activities.

General Consent

  • Section 6 Requirement: The DSPE Act mandates state consent for CBI investigations within their jurisdictions, aligning with the federal structure.
  • State List Subjects: “Police” and “public order” are state subjects under the Constitution, reinforcing the need for state permission for CBI actions.
  • Union Territories Exception: No prior consent is required for investigations in Union territories or railway areas.
  • State Withdrawals: States like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Meghalaya, and West Bengal have revoked general consent.
  • Allegations of Misuse: States allege that the Centre is using the CBI to unfairly target opposition parties, prompting the withdrawal of consent.
  • Impact on CBI: Without general consent, the CBI cannot register new cases in these states without explicit state government permission.

West Bengal’s Case

  • Original Suit: West Bengal filed a suit under Article 131, claiming Union government actions infringed on its sovereignty.
  • Constitutional Overreach: The state argued that the CBI’s registration of new cases despite consent withdrawal constituted a constitutional overreach.
  • Sovereignty Infringement: The suit sought annulment of 12 new CBI cases and a prohibition on further investigations without state consent.
  • Article 131 Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to address disputes between the Centre and states under Article 131.
  • Federalism Feature: Past rulings emphasized that Article 131 should be interpreted broadly to address Centre-State conflicts.
  • State’s Rights: The Court highlighted that state rights under Article 131 should not be viewed restrictively, ensuring a fair hearing of disputes.

Union Government’s Argument

  • Maintainability Objections: The Solicitor-General argued that the CBI, not being a state under Article 131, could not be a defendant in the suit.
  • Independent Agency Claim: The Union contended that the CBI operates independently and is not directly controlled by the Union government.
  • CBI’s Functions: The Union claimed it does not supervise the CBI’s registration of offences, investigations, or judicial outcomes.
  • Consent Requirement: The Union conceded that the CBI requires Union government authorization under Section 5 of the DSPE Act for investigations.
  • State Notification: The central issue was whether the CBI could ignore West Bengal’s 2018 notification withdrawing consent.
  • Jurisdiction Limitation: Once a state withdraws consent, the CBI lacks jurisdiction to operate within that state without explicit permission.

Supreme Court Verdict

  • DSPE Act Analysis: The Court concluded that the Central government is fundamentally involved in the CBI’s constitution, administration, and powers.
  • Central Superintendence: Under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, the Central government supervises the CBI, except in matters related to the Prevention of Corruption Act.
  • Consent Mandate: Section 6 of the DSPE Act mandates state consent for CBI investigations, affirming the need for adherence to this requirement.
  • Autonomy and Control: The Court recognized the CBI’s investigative autonomy but underscored its administrative control by the Centre.
  • Independent Agency Rejection: The Court rejected the argument that the CBI is an independent agency, highlighting its central governance.
  • Preliminary Observations: The Court clarified that its observations addressed preliminary objections and did not influence the suit’s merits.

Implications

  • Federalism Impact: Allowing the CBI to investigate in states that have revoked consent could undermine federalism and strain Centre-State relations.
  • State Police Powers: Granting the CBI the same powers as state police forces without state consent challenges the constitutional distribution of powers.
  • Pending Cases: The final ruling on West Bengal’s suit will significantly affect similar pending cases involving Centre-State disputes over CBI jurisdiction.
  • Judicial Oversight: Another Supreme Court Bench is examining similar issues in Tamil Nadu, suggesting the need for judicial oversight to prevent misuse of central agencies.
  • Cross-Fire Protection: Judicial oversight is recommended to protect innocents from prosecution amid conflicts between central agencies and state authorities.
  • Broader Context: The outcome of these cases will shape the future of Centre-State dynamics and the operational limits of the CBI.

Way Forward

  1. Clear Jurisdiction: Establish clear guidelines delineating the CBI’s jurisdiction, emphasizing respect for state sovereignty to avoid conflicts.
  2. Federal Collaboration: Enhance collaboration between the Centre and states through regular consultations to foster trust and ensure smooth investigations.
  3. Revised Consent Protocols: Develop a standardized, transparent protocol for granting and revoking general consent to balance state authority and CBI efficiency.
  4. Judicial Oversight: Implement judicial oversight mechanisms to review disputes between the CBI and state governments, ensuring impartial resolution.
  5. Strengthened State Agencies: Invest in strengthening state investigative agencies to reduce reliance on the CBI and promote local accountability.
  6. Training and Resources: Provide comprehensive training and resources for CBI officers to handle state-specific legal and cultural contexts effectively.
  7. Public Awareness: Increase public awareness about the roles and limitations of the CBI and state police to build informed community support.
  8. Legislative Review: Conduct a legislative review of the DSPE Act to modernize and address contemporary issues, ensuring it aligns with evolving federal dynamics.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for a balanced approach to Centre-State relations concerning investigative jurisdiction. Establishing clear guidelines, enhancing collaboration, and ensuring judicial oversight are essential steps towards maintaining federal harmony and upholding the principles of constitutional governance.

Source:The Hindu

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the maintainability of West Bengal’s suit against the Union government concerning the CBI’s jurisdiction. How does this impact Centre-State relations, and what measures can be taken to address potential conflicts?

Associated Article:

 https://universalinstitutions.com/what-is-general-consent-for-cbi/