TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court of India recently upheld the maintainability of the West Bengal government’s suit against the Union government.
EXPLANATION:
- The suit accuses the Union government of “constitutional overreach” by permitting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register and investigate cases within West Bengal despite the State’s withdrawal of general consent.
- This verdict is significant for its implications on Centre-State relations, especially in Opposition-ruled States.
Background and Context
- On November 16, 2018, the West Bengal government withdrew its general consent for the CBI to conduct investigations within the State.
- Despite this withdrawal, the CBI continued to register and investigate cases in West Bengal.
- This prompted the State to file an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution in August 2021, challenging the Union government’s directive and accusing it of infringing on the State’s sovereignty.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
- On July 10, 2024, A two-member Bench upheld the maintainability of West Bengal’s suit.
- The Court rejected the Union government’s preliminary objections and ruled that the suit discloses a valid cause of action, warranting a hearing on merits.
Key Observations
- Centre’s Control Over CBI:
- The Court concluded that the CBI operates under the control of the Union government, despite arguments to the contrary.
- The Bench referenced the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, highlighting that the establishment, exercise of powers, and superintendence of the DSPE all vest with the Government of India.
- Requirement of State Consent:
- Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the CBI requires consent from the concerned State government before initiating investigations within its jurisdiction.
- This requirement is crucial as “police” and “public order” fall within the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
- Validity of State’s Revocation:
- The Court underscored that once a State withdraws its general consent, the CBI lacks jurisdiction to exercise its powers within that State without explicit permission.
- The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for August 13, 2024, to frame issues and proceed with the merits of the case.
- States typically grant general consent to the CBI to facilitate seamless investigations, particularly into corruption charges against Central government employees within their territories.
- However, since 2015, several Opposition-ruled States have revoked this consent, alleging that the Union government misused the federal agency to target political adversaries.
- These States include:
- Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Meghalaya, West Bengal.
- In the absence of general consent, the CBI must obtain case-specific permission from the respective State governments to initiate any investigation.
Constitutional Provisions and Legal Precedents
- Article 131 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the Centre and States or between States.
- For a suit to be maintainable under this provision, it must involve:
- A dispute between the Government of India and one or more State Governments or between two or more State Governments.
- A question of law or fact crucial to the determination of legal rights.
- Legal precedents such as State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India (1977) support a broad interpretation of Article 131 to advance the intended remedy and protect State rights within the federal structure.
Arguments Presented
- Union Government
- Independence of CBI: The solicitor general argued that the CBI is an independent agency that is not directly controlled by the union government.
- Defendant Status: He contended that the CBI, not the Union government, registered the disputed cases, and since the CBI is not a ‘State’ under Article 131, it cannot be made a defendant in the suit.
- West Bengal Government
- State Sovereignty: A senior advocate argued that the Union government’s actions infringed on West Bengal’s sovereignty. He emphasized that the CBI lacks jurisdiction to operate in the State once general consent is withdrawn.
- Court’s Observations
- The Court concluded that the CBI while maintaining operational independence, remains under the administrative control and superintendence of the Union government.
- This conclusion invalidated the Union’s argument about the CBI’s independence.
Implications of the Verdict
- Federalism and Centre-State Relations
- Allowing the CBI to investigate in States without their consent would undermine the principles of federalism.
- It could strain Centre-State relations, particularly in the Opposition-ruled States, and confer upon the CBI powers equivalent to State police forces, which constitutionally fall within the State’s jurisdiction.
Pending Cases
- The final ruling on the merits of West Bengal’s suit will significantly impact similar cases pending in other Opposition-ruled States.
- Another Supreme Court bench is examining a related issue in the case of Ankit Tiwari, an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer facing prosecution by Tamil Nadu’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- It is the premier investigating police agency in India that functions under the superintendence of the Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances, Government of India, which falls under the prime minister’s office.
- Thereby, the CBI is not a statutory body but derives its power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946.
- It handles cases like:
- Anti-corruption crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.
- Economic crimes include fake Indian currency notes, bank frauds, import, export, and foreign exchange violations.
- Other cases include special crimes, suo moto cases, etc.