• The Supreme Court held that the suit filed by West Bengal against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), for allegedly proceeding with probes and filing FIRs in cases of post-poll violence without getting the state government’s consent as required under the law is maintainable. 

• The judgment highlighted the Union government’s significant involvement with the CBI, as only offences notified by the Centre can be investigated by the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which governs the agency.

• Justice Gavai noted that under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, the Central Vigilance Commission holds superintendence over offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the Central government retains superintendence over all other matters related to the DSPE.

• The SC also reminded the Centre that the DSPE Act requires the prior consent of the state government for a CBI probe within its jurisdiction.

• In 2018, the West Bengal government withdrew its consent that allowed the CBI to conduct investigations of cases in the states. 

• In its suit, West Bengal contended that despite the revocation of its consent for the central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946, the CBI continued to register FIRs concerning offences that took place within the State. 

General consent for CBI probe

• CBI derives its authority from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. 

• It functions within a well-established legal and procedural framework. 

• The provisions of DSPE Act, primarily, apply to the Union Territories and are extended to the states only with their consent.

• As per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the CBI needs the consent from the respective state government for conducting investigation in its jurisdiction.

• Some state governments have granted a general consent to CBI for the investigation of specified class of offences against specified categories of persons enabling CBI to register and investigate those specified matters. 

• The central government can authorise the CBI to investigate such crime in a state, but only with the consent of the concerned state government. 

• The Supreme Court and High Courts, however, can order CBI to investigate such a crime anywhere in the country without the consent of the state.

• Many states, including Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Telangana and Tamil Nadu, have withdrawn general consent to the CBI to probe cases. 

Central Bureau of Investigation

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the premier anti-corruption investigative agency in India. 

• It has the experience of handling high profile conventional crimes, economic offences, banking frauds and crimes with international links. 

Evolution of CBI

• The CBI traces its origin to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) which was set up in 1941 by the government of India. 

• The functions of the SPE then were to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in transactions with the War & Supply Department of India during World War II. 

• Superintendence of the SPE was vested with the War Department. Even after the end of the War, the need for a central government agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption by central government employees was felt.

• The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act was therefore brought into force in 1946. 

• This Act transferred the superintendence of the SPE to the Home Department and its functions were enlarged to cover all departments of the government of India. 

• The jurisdiction of the SPE extended to all the Union Territories and could be extended also to the states with the consent of the state government concerned.

• The DSPE acquired its popular current name, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), through a home ministry resolution in 1963. 

• The founder director of the CBI was D.P. Kohli held office from April 1, 1963 to May 31, 1968.

• Initially the offences notified by the central government were related to corruption by central government servants.

• It was set up to not only investigate cases of bribery and corruption but also a violation of central fiscal laws, major frauds relating to government of India departments, public joint stock companies, passport frauds and serious crimes committed by organised gangs and professional criminals.

• CBI was further strengthened by the addition of the Economic Offences Wing in 1964.

• The scope of Economic Offences Division was expanded from time to time to cover various economic offences mainly pertaining to serious frauds in banks, stock exchanges, financial institutions, joint stock companies, public limited companies, misappropriation of public funds, misallocation of national natural resources like coal, criminal breach of trust, cheating of small investors through Ponzi Scheme and chit fund scams, cybercrime, IMPEX Laws, counterfeiting of currency, narcotics, drug trafficking, offences related to antiques, arts & treasures, piracy, forgery of travel documents/identity papers, fraud in overseas job rackets, wildlife crimes, etc.

• Over time, requests were made by various quarters for the CBI to take up investigation in crimes like homicide, kidnapping, large scale banks and insurance frauds, complicated matters, etc. 

• Courts also reposed faith in CBI and started referring cases to it for enquiry/investigation based on petitions filed by the aggrieved persons in serious matters. This led to the multi-dimensional growth of the agency.

• The CBI has jurisdiction to investigate offences pertaining to 69 Central laws, 18 State Acts and 231 offences in the IPC.

• In order to secure cooperation between the Special Police Establishment and the ministries/departments of the central government, separate directives had been issued by the ministry of home affairs, railway board and the Army, Naval and Air Headquarters and Defence Production Organisation. Subsequently, these separate directives were replaced by one single directive of memorandum by the ministry of home affairs.

CBI described as “caged parrot”

• The Supreme Court raised concerns about the CBI’s independence during the coal allocation (coalgate) scam case, describing it as a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”.

• The Supreme Court urged the Centre to ensure the CBI’s impartiality and emphasized the need for the CBI to operate free from external pressures. In response to this, the Centre filed an affidavit stating following measures will be adopted to ensure the autonomy of the CBI. 

Some of those measures have been adopted, such as:

• The CBI director is appointed by a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and Leader of the Opposition (or Leader of the largest opposition party). 

• The director cannot be appointed or removed without the consent of this collegium.

• The CBI director can be removed on the grounds of misbehaviour only by an order from the President following an inquiry.

• An accountability commission, headed by three retired Supreme Court or High Court judges, will handle grievances against the CBI.

• According to the affidavit, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has superintendence and administrative power over the CBI for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the Centre holds these powers for other cases.

(The author is a trainer for Civil Services aspirants.)