Supreme Court Upholds CBI’s Power to Investigate Central Government Employees: CBI vs. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. (2025) INSC 11

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 02 January 2025. Citation: 2025 INSC 11. Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J. The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a critical question: Does the CBI need a state’s consent to investigate central government employees in corruption cases within that state? This judgment clarifies the extent of the CBI’s power and its implications for corruption investigations. The bench was composed of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Ravikumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves two separate incidents of alleged corruption. First, in 2017, a Superintendent of Central Excise in Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh, was accused of demanding a bribe for issuing a license surrender certificate. Second, in 2017, an Accounts Assistant in Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh, was accused of taking a bribe to process contract bills. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered First Information Reports (FIRs) in both cases under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI filed chargesheets in the Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The court took cognizance of the cases. Subsequently, the cases were transferred to Vishakhapatnam and then to Kurnool.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a common judgment, addressed the writ petitions filed by the accused. The High Court held that the transfer of cases from Vishakhapatnam to Kurnool was lawful. However, it ruled that the CBI lacked the necessary consent from the State of Telangana to register the FIRs and conduct investigations. The High Court also found that there was no proper notification for a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIRs and subsequent proceedings.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Section 6 of the DSPE Act states that the CBI needs the consent of the State Government to exercise its powers in that state. However, the Supreme Court also considered the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014, and its impact on the applicability of laws post-bifurcation. Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act, 2014 states that all laws applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh would continue to apply to the new States. This includes any order, bye-law, scheme, notification, or any other instrument having the force of law.

Arguments

Appellant (CBI) Arguments:

• The CBI argued that the High Court failed to consider Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 dated 26.05.2014, which clarified that all laws applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh would continue to apply to the newly created states.
• The CBI contended that the office of S.P. CBI Hyderabad was not deprived of its identity as ‘Special Police Force’ even after the bifurcation.
• The CBI submitted that there was consent for CBI investigation under Section 6 of the DSPE Act at the time of registration of the FIRs.
• The CBI argued that the general consent orders were not limited to Andhra Pradesh alone.

Respondent Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the FIRs were registered by the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in Telangana, while the alleged offenses occurred in Kurnool and Anantapur, which are in Andhra Pradesh.
• They contended that the CBI needed permission from the Andhra Pradesh government under Section 6 of the DSPE Act to register and investigate the FIRs.
• The respondents submitted that the Special Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the cases, as there was no specific notification under the PC Act.
• They argued that the subsequent events could not cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the CBI had the power to register the FIRs and investigate the offenses without the consent of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
2. Whether the FIR for offenses under the PC Act could be registered in Hyderabad, Telangana, when the offenses occurred in Andhra Pradesh.
3. Whether the CBI Court in Telangana had jurisdiction to try offenses under the PC Act for offenses committed in Andhra Pradesh.
4. Whether the CBI Court, Hyderabad was notified as a Special Court under Section 4 of the PC Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Punjab and Others v. Balbir Singh & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 242*: Followed to establish that the CBI Hyderabad retained its identity as a Special Police Force.
• Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and Ors. v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 689*: Followed to establish that laws of the undivided state remain valid in the new states until amended.
• C.B.I., A.H.D., Patna v. Braj Bhushan Prasad (2001) 9 SCC 432*: Interpreted to determine the jurisdiction of CBI Courts under the PC Act.
• Fertico Marketing and Investment Private Limited and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 525*: Distinguished to clarify that state consent is not required for investigating central government employees in cases under central acts.
• Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 395*: Followed to clarify that state consent is not required for investigating central government employees in cases under central acts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several points in its reasoning. The court noted that the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 ensured the continuity of laws after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. It also highlighted that the CBI’s power to investigate central government employees for offenses under a Central Act is not contingent on the location of the offense. The court also considered the intent of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is to curb corruption, and any interpretation that hinders this objective was rejected. The court also noted that the CBI court at Hyderabad was already notified as a special court.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the CBI needed consent from the State of Andhra Pradesh, but rejected it. The court reasoned that the general consent given to the CBI before the bifurcation of the state continued to be valid in both states. The court also considered the argument that the CBI court in Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction but rejected it, stating that the court was already notified as a special court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome and reasoning. The court’s decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents. The court emphasized the need for a consistent and practical interpretation of the law, especially in cases involving corruption. The court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving CBI investigations of central government employees.

“all the laws, which were applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, as on 1 -6-2014, would continue to apply to the new States i.e., State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh created Dy the Central Act, with effect from 2 -6-2014 notwithstanding the bifurcation of the erstwhile Pradesh”

“the special police force/DSPE (CBI) must be held to be competent to register the FIR at Delhi and also to investigate the same without the consent of the State.”

“the finding of the High Court all such ‘laws’ pertain only to the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be the correct law and the legal fiction should be that such laws would be in force in the new State unless altered or repealed or amended by it, in accordance with law”

Key Takeaways

• The CBI does not need separate consent from a state to investigate central government employees for offenses under a central act, even if the offense occurs within that state.
• Laws of the undivided state continue to apply to the new states until altered, repealed, or amended.
• The CBI’s jurisdiction extends to central government employees irrespective of the location of the offense.
• The CBI Court in Hyderabad was already notified as a special court.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the cases to the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool. The trial court was directed to continue with the cases against the respective respondents.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the CBI has the power to investigate central government employees for offenses under central acts without needing separate consent from the state where the offense occurred. This clarifies the CBI’s powers and ensures consistency in corruption investigations. This judgment also reinforces the principle that laws of the undivided state continue to apply to the new states until altered, repealed, or amended.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in CBI vs. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. clarifies the CBI’s power to investigate central government employees for corruption offenses. The court held that the CBI does not need separate consent from a state to investigate such cases under central acts. The court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the cases to the trial court, ensuring that the investigations can proceed. This decision reinforces the CBI’s role in combating corruption and provides clarity on the applicability of laws post-state bifurcation.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Central Bureau of Investigation, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

FAQ

Q: Does the CBI need permission from the state to investigate central government employees?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the CBI does not need separate consent from a state to investigate central government employees for offenses under a central act.

Q: What happens to laws when a state is divided?

A: The laws of the undivided state continue to apply to the new states until they are altered, repealed, or amended.

Q: Where can the CBI investigate central government employees for corruption?

A: The CBI can investigate central government employees for offenses under a central act irrespective of where the offense occurred.

Q: What was the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue was whether the CBI needed the consent of the state government to investigate central government employees for corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the CBI does not need separate consent from a state to investigate central government employees for offenses under a central act. The court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the cases to the trial court.