Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Withdraw Consent for CBI Investigations: West Bengal vs. Union of India (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 10 July 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 502
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) continue to operate in a state after the state government withdraws its consent? This question of federal balance was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The State of West Bengal challenged the Union of India’s authority, arguing that the CBI’s continued investigations after the state withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has addressed the preliminary objections raised by the Union of India regarding the maintainability of the suit. The bench comprised of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, contesting the CBI’s authority to register and investigate cases within the state after the withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. The state argued that the CBI’s actions violated the principles of federalism and the constitutional distribution of powers between the Union and the states.

The core of the dispute stems from the State of West Bengal’s withdrawal of its general consent to the CBI for conducting investigations within its territory. This withdrawal, the state contended, should have barred the CBI from registering new cases without specific consent. However, the CBI continued to register cases, prompting the State to approach the Supreme Court.

The State of West Bengal sought several reliefs, including a declaration that the CBI’s registration of cases post-withdrawal of consent is unconstitutional, an injunction restraining the CBI from registering or investigating cases in the state without consent, and the quashing of all cases registered by the CBI after the withdrawal of consent, with records to be transferred to the state police.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Article 131 of the Constitution of India: This article defines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes between the Government of India and one or more states. It states:
  
  “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute – (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends…”
• Article 246 of the Constitution of India: This article distributes legislative powers between the Union and the States. It specifies that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on matters in List I (Union List) and State legislatures have exclusive power on matters in List II (State List).
• Entry 80 of List I (Union List): This entry allows the Union to extend the powers of a state police force to areas outside that state, but not without the consent of the state where the area is located.
• Entries 1 and 2 of List II (State List): These entries grant states exclusive powers over public order and police, subject to Entry 2A of List I.
• Section 2 of the DSPE Act: Empowers the Central Government to constitute a special police force called the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) for investigating offenses in any Union Territory.
• Section 3 of the DSPE Act: Empowers the Central Government to specify the offenses to be investigated by the DSPE.
• Section 4 of the DSPE Act: Deals with the superintendence and administration of the DSPE. It states that the superintendence of the DSPE, regarding offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vests with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and in all other matters, with the Central Government.
  
  “(1) The superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment insofar as it relates to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), shall vest in the Commission.
  (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), the superintendence of the said police establishment in all other matters shall vest in the Central Government.”
• Section 5 of the DSPE Act: Allows the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of the DSPE to any area in a state, not being a Union Territory.
• Section 6 of the DSPE Act: Mandates that the CBI cannot exercise powers in a state without the consent of the state government.
  
  “Nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.”

Arguments

Submissions of the Defendant (Union of India):

• The Union of India contended that the suit was not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution because the issue was also pending in appeals before the Supreme Court under Article 136 and in High Courts under Article 226. They argued that the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” in Article 131 should be interpreted to include Article 136, thus barring the suit.
• The Union argued that no cause of action was made out against them, as the CBI, not the Union, registers cases. The CBI was not made a party as it would not be maintainable under Article 131.
• It was submitted that the suit lacked factual foundation and was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder or misjoinder of parties.
• The Union submitted that the term ‘State’ under Article 131 cannot be expanded to include instrumentalities of the State under Article 12. The dispute is essentially between the State of West Bengal and the CBI.
• The Union contended that the CBI is under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), not the Union Government, and that the CVC is an independent body.
• The Union argued that the State of West Bengal suppressed the fact that many cases were registered on the direction of the High Court and did not comply with Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Submissions of the Plaintiff (State of West Bengal):

• The State of West Bengal argued that only the averments in the plaint should be considered to determine the maintainability of the suit. They contended that a cause of action was indeed made out against the Union of India.
• The State submitted that the DSPE Act empowers the Central Government to constitute the CBI and specify the offenses it investigates. The State argued that the CBI is an organ of the Union of India and not an instrumentality of the State.
• The State argued that the power of the Central Government to extend CBI’s jurisdiction is subject to the consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Once consent is withdrawn, the CBI cannot operate in the State.
• The State contended that the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” in Article 131 refers to provisions that explicitly prohibit the Supreme Court from exercising jurisdiction, such as Article 262 and Article 279A(11), and not to Article 136 or 226.
• The State argued that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that there was no material suppression of facts.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the CBI can continue to register and investigate cases in the State of West Bengal after the State has withdrawn its general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

• Article 131, Constitution of India: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• Article 246, Constitution of India: Distribution of legislative powers.
• Article 262, Constitution of India: Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys.
• Section 2, DSPE Act: Constitution and powers of special police establishment.
• Section 3, DSPE Act: Offences to be investigated by special police establishment.
• Section 4, DSPE Act: Superintendence and administration of the Special Police Establishment.
• Section 5, DSPE Act: Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police establishment to other areas.
• Section 6, DSPE Act: Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction.
• Order XXVI Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Rejection of plaint.
• Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10, Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Documents to be produced with plaint.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Bihar v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 67]: The court partly approved the ratio regarding parties to a suit under Article 131 but disapproved the observation that the legal right must arise in the context of the Constitution and federalism.
• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592]: The court followed this judgment to define the scope of Article 131 and the legal rights of states.
• Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited [(2010) 7 SCC 417] and Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1312]: The court distinguished these cases on misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, holding that the Union of India is the correct party.
• D.M. Deshpande v. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam [(1998) 8 SCC 315] and Attorney-General of the Colony of Fiji v. J.P. Bayly Limited [1949 SCC OnLine PC 76]: The court distinguished these cases on the factual basis of suits, finding that the plaint had a factual basis.
• Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Limited v. State of Karnataka [(2006) 1 SCC 442]: The court distinguished this case, holding that the expanded meaning of ‘State’ under Article 12 does not apply to Article 131.
• National Textile Corporation Limited v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad [(2011) 12 SCC 695]: The court distinguished this case, holding that the dispute is between the State and the Union.
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226] and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [(2012) 3 SCC 104]: The court distinguished these cases, holding that the administrative control of the DSPE vests with the Union.
• S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1], Atma Linga Reddy v. Union of India [(2008) 7 SCC 788], and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation [1994 Supp (2) SCC 116]: The court distinguished these cases, finding that there was no material suppression of facts.
• Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557], Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner [(2004) 3 SCC 137], Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh [(2012) 8 SCC 701], and Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [(2018) 6 SCC 422]: The court followed these cases, reiterating that only the averments in the plaint are to be considered.
• South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum [[1964] 4 SCR 280] and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398]: The court followed these cases, relying on them to interpret the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Constitution.”
• State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571]: The court distinguished this case on the point of superintendence of CBI.
• M. Balakrishna Reddy v. CBI [(2008) 4 SCC 409]: The court followed this case to highlight the three conditions for CBI to exercise its powers.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the preliminary objections was influenced by several key factors:

• Constitutional Scheme of Federalism: The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the balance between the powers of the Union and the States, particularly in the context of police powers, which are primarily a State subject.
• Interpretation of Article 131: The Court interpreted Article 131 as a special provision designed for disputes between the Union and the States, not subject to the general remedies under Articles 32, 136, or 226.
• Statutory Scheme of the DSPE Act: The Court underscored that the DSPE Act requires the consent of the State Government for the CBI to exercise its powers within a State’s territory, highlighting that this consent is crucial for the CBI’s jurisdiction.
• Nature of the CBI: The Court clarified that the CBI is an organ of the Union Government, and its actions can be attributed to the Union, making the Union a proper party to the suit.
• Rejection of Technical Objections: The Court rejected the Union’s technical objections regarding non-joinder or misjoinder of parties, and the alleged suppression of facts, focusing on the core issue of whether the CBI could operate in the State without its consent.

Flowchart: CBI Investigation in a State

Final Orders and Next Steps

The Supreme Court made the following orders:

• The preliminary objections raised by the Union of India regarding the maintainability of the suit were rejected.
• The suit was held to be maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
• The matter was listed for framing of issues on August 13, 2024.

The next step in this case will be the framing of issues by the Supreme Court, after which the case will proceed to a hearing on the merits. The key issue to be decided will be whether the CBI can continue to register and investigate cases in the State of West Bengal after the State has withdrawn its general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for the balance of power between the Union and the States in India:

• Federalism: The judgment reinforces the principle of federalism, emphasizing that the States have a significant say in how central agencies operate within their territory. The Supreme Court has upheld the importance of State consent in the context of CBI investigations.
• State Autonomy: The judgment underscores the autonomy of States in matters of law and order, as it recognizes the right of States to withdraw their consent for CBI investigations.
• CBI Operations: The judgment clarifies that the CBI cannot operate in a State without the State’s consent, and a withdrawal of consent effectively bars the CBI from registering new cases without specific permission.
• Legal Precedent: This judgment sets a precedent for similar disputes between the Union and other States, providing clarity on the interpretation of Article 131 and Section 6 of the DSPE Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Union of India is a significant step in clarifying the extent of the Union’s powers in relation to the States. By upholding the maintainability of the suit under Article 131, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of federal principles and the autonomy of States in matters of police and law and order. The Court’s interpretation of Section 6 of the DSPE Act emphasizes that the CBI cannot operate in a State without the State’s consent. The judgment sets a clear legal framework for future disputes and underscores the delicate balance between the Union and the States in India’s constitutional structure. The substantive issue of whether the CBI can continue to register and investigate cases after the withdrawal of consent will be decided in the next hearing, which will further clarify the extent of the CBI’s powers in a federal setup.