New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected the Centre’s contention that it has no authority over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), pointedly asking who else has the power to authorise to send the probe agency to states to investigate cases.
“Who would be the authority to authorise the CBI to proceed to another state for investigation?” Justice Sandeep Mehta, a member of the two-judge Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.
In response, Mehta did finally say, “The Central government.”
The top court was dealing with a suit filed by the state of West Bengal under Article 131 of the constitution, accusing the Union government of “interfering” in cases originating within the state’s jurisdiction by unilaterally authorising the CBI to probe them. Article 31 deals with the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states.
In November 2018, West Bengal withdrew its general consent to the CBI to conduct investigations of cases in the state. In its 2021 suit, the state contended that despite revoking the consent for the central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 (Act), the CBI continued to register first information reports (FIRs) in respect of offences that took place within the state.
The Centre in its response moved the court saying that the suit was not maintainable and should be dismissed. It argued that West Bengal had wrongly made the Centre the defendant in the suit. Arguing for the Centre, Mehta said it was wrong on the part of West Bengal to term the CBI as the “police force of the Union”. The Centre had no role in where and how the CBI conducts its investigations, asserted Mehta.
Rejecting the claim of Tushar Mehta, Justice Mehta sought to know from the former what the Centre thinks about Section 5(1) of the DSPE Act, the statute which governs the premier probe agency. According to Section 5(1) of the Act, the Central government is authorised to “pass orders extending to any area (including Railway areas) in a State, not being a Union Territory, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) or the investigation of any offences or classes of offences…”.
Referring to the pertinent section of the Act, Justice Mehta pointedly asked Tushar Mehta, “If what you are saying is true, why does Section 5(1) give the Central government the power and jurisdiction to define the powers and jurisdiction of the CBI under DSPE?”
To this, Centre’s top law officer said, “Somebody will have to.”
Persisting, Justice Mehta asked, “Who is that ‘someone’?”
When the law officer said it may be the CBI director, Justice Mehta referred to Section 5(1) again to ask whether he meant the “Director could be the Central government”.
“Are you saying the Director and the Central government are the same? Which would be the department of the Central government authorised under Section 5(1)?” Justice Mehta asked.
The solicitor general finally conceded that it may be the department of personnel and training or the home ministry.
Tushar Mehta then went on to argue that the suit could not be amended to make CBI a defendant as it was not a ‘state’ under Article 131. He had submitted that original suits under Article 131 could only be filed for disputes involving the Centre and states.
The court reserved its verdict on the maintainability of the original suit filed by West Bengal against the Union government
The top court was dealing with a suit filed by the state of West Bengal under Article 131 of the constitution, accusing the Union government of “interfering” in cases originating within the state’s jurisdiction by unilaterally authorising the CBI to probe them.
