Syllabus
GS Paper 2 – Functions & responsibilities of the Union and the States; issues and challenges of federal structure;
Context
On July 10, the Supreme Court upheld West Bengal’s suit against the Union government, accusing it of “constitutional overreach” by using the CBI.
Source
The Hindu| Editorial dated 15th July 2024
On the jurisdiction of the CBI
West Bengal accused the Centre of “constitutional overreach” for employing the CBI to investigate cases despite the withdrawal of general consent. This case highlights the tensions between central and state authority in India’s federal structure.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- Premier investigative agency in India, to investigate grievous cases and provide leadership and direction in fighting corruption to the police force across the country.
- Also, the nodal police agency in India that coordinates investigations on behalf of Interpol member countries.
- Recommended by – Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962–1964).
- Status – Not a statutory body
- Set up by a resolution (1963) of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
- Derives its powers from – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
- Nodal Ministry – Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions.
General and Specific consent
- CBI needs to obtain the consent of state governments before it can investigate a crime in a particular state.
- Governed as per – Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act of 1946.
- Consent of the state can be either general or case-specific.
- General consent – CBI is not required to seek fresh permission every time it enters that state in connection with investigation or for every case.
- Exception to general consent –
- Supreme Court and High Courts can order CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country without the consent of the state.
- Consent does not apply in cases where someone has been caught red-handed taking a bribe.
- Specific consent – CBI would have to apply to the state government in every case.
Supreme Court Observations
- The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, provisions indicate the Central government’s vital involvement in the constitution, administration, and powers of the CBI.
- Section 4 of DSPE Act: Superintendence of the CBI, except for corruption cases under the Central Vigilance Commission, lies with the Central government.
- State Consent Requirement: Section 6 mandates state government consent for CBI probes within state jurisdictions.
- The Solicitor General’s argument of CBI’s independence was rejected. The CBI’s independence does not negate the administrative control of the Centre.
Implications
- Undermining Federalism: If the CBI is allowed to initiate investigations in states that have revoked their general consent, it could be seen as an infringement on the state’s autonomy.
- This undermines the principles of federalism, which is the division of powers between the central and state governments.
- Federalism aims to ensure that states have certain exclusive rights and powers that the central government cannot encroach upon.
- Allowing the CBI to operate without state consent could weaken this balance of power.
- Strained Centre-State Relations: The decision could lead to increased tensions between the central and state governments.
- Since “police” and “public order” are state subjects under the Constitution, states have the primary responsibility for law enforcement within their territories.
- If the central government, through the CBI, bypasses the state government’s authority, it could lead to disputes and a breakdown in cooperative federalism.
- Impact on Similar Cases: The Supreme Court’s final ruling on this matter will set a precedent for other similar cases pending in different states.
- Several states have already revoked general consent for the CBI, and the Court’s decision will clarify the extent of the CBI’s powers and the validity of state withdrawals of consent.
- Operational Adjustments for CBI: The CBI might have to adjust its operational strategies to align with the Court’s ruling.
- This could involve seeking explicit consent from state governments more frequently or finding alternative legal frameworks to continue its investigations.
- Political Ramifications: The decision could have political implications, especially in states governed by parties in opposition to the central government.
Other Supreme Court Judgments on Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1997)
- Objective: Securing autonomy of the CBI.
- Key Steps:
- Appointment of CBI Director: Mandated to be done by a high-powered committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of India or their nominees.
- Tenure: Fixed tenure of two years for the CBI Director to ensure stability and independence.
- Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, CBI (2014)
- Issue: Constitutionality of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
- Supreme Court Decision:
- Quashed Section 6A: This section required prior approval of the Central Government for inquiries or investigations into corruption cases involving senior civil servants.
- Constitutional Violation: Held that Section 6A violated Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution, ensuring equal treatment under law.
- Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018)
- Focus: Validity of Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
- Ruling:
- Selection Committee: Upheld the provision for a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of India or their nominees to appoint or remove the CBI Director.
- Consent Requirement: Directed that any transfer or change in the CBI Director’s duties must have prior consent from this committee, enhancing transparency and accountability in leadership transitions.
Challenges Faced by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- Political Interference
- Allegations of influence by the political establishment, compromising the CBI’s independence.
- Described as a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice” by the Supreme Court, highlighting concerns about external control.
- Allegations of Bias
- Accusations of bias in investigations, favoring specific political parties or individuals.
- Selective Prosecutions: Criticisms regarding the selective nature of prosecutions initiated by the CBI.
- Accountability Issues
- Questions about the CBI’s accountability mechanisms, including oversight and transparency in operations.
- Calls for stronger mechanisms to ensure transparency and prevent undue influence.
- Shortage of Manpower and Resources
- Persistent lack of personnel, infrastructure, and financial resources.
- Hampers investigative capabilities, affecting the agency’s ability to handle workload and complex cases effectively.
- Delayed Investigations
- Criticism over the slow pace of investigations.
- Includes resource constraints and procedural complexities contributing to delays.
Measures to Enhance Autonomy of CBI
- Statutory Backing
- Proposal: Introduce a new CBI Act to replace the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act).
- Define the CBI’s role, jurisdiction, and legal powers explicitly in the new legislation.
- Increasing Staff Strength:Address manpower shortages to improve investigative efficiency.
- Enhancing Resources
- Allocate more financial resources and improve infrastructure for the CBI.
- Infrastructure Boost: Upgrade facilities to support enhanced operational needs.
- Expanding Jurisdiction
- Consider expanding the CBI’s investigative powers across Union, State, and Concurrent lists.
- Grant broader jurisdiction to strengthen enforcement capabilities.
- Other Administrative Measures
- Provide administrative autonomy to the CBI to streamline operations.
- Implement robust accountability mechanisms to ensure transparency and fair practices.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling that the West Bengal government’s suit is maintainable highlights critical issues related to federalism and the balance of power between the Centre and the States. The decision underscores the importance of respecting state sovereignty in matters of law and order while ensuring that central agencies operate within constitutional boundaries.
Related PYQ
The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular State is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India. [ UPSC Civil Services Exam – Mains 2021]
Practice Question
What is the jurisdiction of CBI while investigating cases in a state? How does mechanism of consent affect federal principles? [250 words]