Editor's Pick | West Bengal suit against CBI probes maintainable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the maintainability of an original suit filed by West Bengal, which accuses the Centre of “constitutional overreach” and violating federalism by unilaterally employing the Central Bureau of Investigation without the State’s prior consent. A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta refused to accept the Union government’s preliminary objection that it was wrongly made a defendant in the suit as it did not control the CBI. “The very establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, the superintendence of the DSPE [Act], all vest with the Government of India,” Justice Gavai, authoring the verdict, said. The court reminded the Centre that the DSPE Act mandated the State’s prior consent to a CBI probe within its jurisdiction. The judgment noted that the Union government was “vitally concerned” with the CBI, saying that this was plainly evident from the fact that only offences notified by the Centre could be investigated by the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, the statute which governs the premier probe agency. “Under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, except the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the superintendence of the DSPE in all other matters would vest with the Central government,” Justice Gavai noted. Justice Gavai, however, clarified that these observations were only made to meet the preliminary objections raised by the Union government. They will have no bearing on the merits of the suit. The Bench set August 13 as the date for hearing framing issues with regard to West Bengal’s suit. The Centre, represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, had earlier contended that the CBI too could not be made a defendant in the suit as the agency was not the ‘Government of India’. Original suits filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution exclusively deal with disputes involving the Union and the States, Mr. Mehta had reasoned. The law officer had pressed the court to dismiss the West Bengal suit on these preliminary grounds without going into its merits. However, the Bench on Wednesday said the suit raised “serious questions concerning the wider ramifications of federalism”. West Bengal, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had made specific contentions that the CBI had acted on the Centre’s directions. At an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had refused to accept at face value the Centre’s claim that it has no control over the CBI, asking who else can send the premier investigating agency to States to investigate cases. “Who would be the authority to authorise the CBI to proceed to another State for investigation?” Justice Mehta, a member of the two-judge Bench headed by Justice Gavai, asked Solicitor General Mehta, appearing for the Centre. “The Central government,” Mr. Mehta acquiesced finally. The court was hearing an original 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. West Bengal said the Centre continues to employ the CBI regardless of the fact that the State had withdrawn its general consent to CBI investigations within its territory under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 way back in November 2018. The CBI has registered over 15 cases in West Bengal. In 2018, shortly after Andhra Pradesh’s decision to withdraw consent to the CBI, the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government also decided to withdraw the “general consent”. The consent had been accorded to the CBI by the then Left Front government in 1989. By 2021, nine States -- West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram -- had withdrawn consent to the CBI launching investigations in their territory, leading the court to point out that the situation is “not a desirable position”. The Hindu’s Editorial ​Locked in conflict: On the standoff in West Bengal ​Even the odd jobs: On the Karnataka gig workers bill The Hindu’s Daily Quiz India off-spinner R. Ashwin has become a co-owner of a new team, which was announced on Monday. Which is the sport he is part of? Chess Cricket Tennis Hockey To know the answer and to play the full quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 11 July 2024 [The Hindu logo] [EP Logo] Editor's Pick 11 July 2024 In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [View in browser]( [More newsletters]( West Bengal suit against CBI probes maintainable: Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Wednesday [upheld the maintainability of an original suit filed by West Bengal]( which accuses the Centre of “constitutional overreach” and violating federalism by unilaterally employing the Central Bureau of Investigation without the State’s prior consent. A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta refused to accept the Union government’s preliminary objection that it was wrongly made a defendant in the suit as it did not control the CBI. “The very establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, the superintendence of the DSPE [Act], all vest with the Government of India,” Justice Gavai, authoring the verdict, said. The court reminded the Centre that the DSPE Act mandated the State’s prior consent to a CBI probe within its jurisdiction. The judgment noted that the Union government was “vitally concerned” with the CBI, saying that this was plainly evident from the fact that only offences notified by the Centre could be investigated by the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, the statute which governs the premier probe agency. “Under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, except the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the superintendence of the DSPE in all other matters would vest with the Central government,” Justice Gavai noted. Justice Gavai, however, clarified that these observations were only made to meet the preliminary objections raised by the Union government. They will have no bearing on the merits of the suit. The Bench set August 13 as the date for hearing framing issues with regard to West Bengal’s suit. The Centre, represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, had earlier contended that the CBI too could not be made a defendant in the suit as the agency was not the ‘Government of India’. Original suits filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution exclusively deal with disputes involving the Union and the States, Mr. Mehta had reasoned. The law officer had pressed the court to dismiss the West Bengal suit on these preliminary grounds without going into its merits. However, the Bench on Wednesday said the suit raised “serious questions concerning the wider ramifications of federalism”. West Bengal, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had made specific contentions that the CBI had acted on the Centre’s directions. At an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had refused to accept at face value the Centre’s claim that it has no control over the CBI, asking who else can send the premier investigating agency to States to investigate cases. “Who would be the authority to authorise the CBI to proceed to another State for investigation?” Justice Mehta, a member of the two-judge Bench headed by Justice Gavai, asked Solicitor General Mehta, appearing for the Centre. “The Central government,” Mr. Mehta acquiesced finally. The court was hearing an original 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. West Bengal said the Centre continues to employ the CBI regardless of the fact that the State had withdrawn its general consent to CBI investigations within its territory under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 way back in November 2018. The CBI has registered over 15 cases in West Bengal. In 2018, shortly after Andhra Pradesh’s decision to withdraw consent to the CBI, the Trinamool Congress-led [West Bengal government also decided to withdraw the “general consent”](. The consent had been accorded to the CBI by the then Left Front government in 1989. By 2021, nine States -- West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram -- had withdrawn consent to the CBI launching investigations in their territory, leading the court to point out that the situation is “not a desirable position”.  The Hindu’s Editorial [Arrow][​Locked in conflict: On the standoff in West Bengal]( [Arrow][​Even the odd jobs: On the Karnataka gig workers bill]( The Hindu’s Daily Quiz India off-spinner R. Ashwin has become a co-owner of a new team, which was announced on Monday. Which is the sport he is part of? - Chess - Cricket - Tennis - Hockey To know the answer and to play the full quiz, [click here](. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Best Reads [[Watch: Explained: What is the significance of the Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker’s role?] Watch: Explained: What is the significance of the Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker’s role?]( [[Duty hours of loco pilots monitored, rest provided after trips: Railway Minister] Duty hours of loco pilots monitored, rest provided after trips: Railway Minister]( [[‘Germany well positioned in Navy’s submarine deal’] ‘Germany well positioned in Navy’s submarine deal’]( [[Supreme Court judge Nagarathna says men should share funds to empower their homemaker wives] Supreme Court judge Nagarathna says men should share funds to empower their homemaker wives]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](