'Union Govt Has No Control Over CBI, West Bengal's Suit Not Maintainable' : AG Tells Supreme Court

The Attorney General for India argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the original suit filed by the State of West Bengal under Article 131 of the Constitution of India against the CBI registering FIRs in relation to offences in the state despite the revocation of general consent was not maintainable."The Defendant (Union of India) is not concerned under any of these issues. There is a Special Act called the DSPE Act and the officials of the Delhi Special Police Establishment are required to register the cases," AG KK Venugopal told the Top Court.The Attorney General submitted that the Union Government has no control over the CBI in matters relating to registration of FIRs, as it was an autonomous body. He submitted that CBI's autonomy was statutorily maintained and that even Central Government could not interfere in the manner in which the CBI investigated its cases."Therefore registering FIR is purely by an autonomous body. Union of India has no control. I'm (Union of India) not registering any case or investigating any case", the AG added. Therefore, he submitted that the suit against the Union of India was not maintainable. The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna while adjourning the matter for two weeks, asked the Union of India to file its Vakalatnama to enter appearance.Courtroom ExchangeWhen the matter was called for hearing, the bench while remarking that the case Anup Majee v. CBI was listed before the bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud which dealt with similar issues, said that it would hear the matter on some other day."Mr Luthra we're informed that SLP's filed against the Calcutta HC today are listed before Justice Chandrachud. Some issues related to Central Government Employees, territories etc are listed today. Let them hear the same. We'll have the matter later," Justice Rao remarked.To persuade the bench to hear the matter today, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for the State of West Bengal submitted that the issue in Anup Majee dealt with whether the CBI had power to investigate illegal mining and transportation of coal through Railways in West Bengal, without the State's consent."They are related to matters pertaining to coal. These are cases related to a gentleman called Anup Majee, which has nothing to do with which your lordship is concerned. There is an issue here with regards to consent in non-railway areas," Senior Counsel added.The bench again while expressing its inclination to hear the matter next week again remarked that, "Mr.Luthra we're only asking you one simple question. Do you want to argue here or before Justice DY Chandrachud? There are issues that are overlapping. We'll benefit from that judgement also.""Mr Luthra, we're seeing that item 4 has been passed over. What happened in that?" asked the bench.Solicitor General at this juncture entered appearance and submitted that the cases listed before the bench of Justice DY Chandrachud were adjourned by mutual consent of the parties by 2 weeks."Let us hear the AG on maintainability and then after that we'll decide if we have to allow your IA or not. In any case if the issue of maintainability arises, we'll have to hear first. He has an objection to the maintainability of your suit," the bench remarked."This suit should be allowed, there is complete mockery of the rules that the other side has made. The suit will have to be allowed. No written statement has been made until now and there is no appearance. I won't stand in AG's way, but look at the rules," Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra at this juncture submitted.Entire Claim And Relief Of State Of West Bengal Is Against CBI: Attorney General For India KK VenugopalAppearing for the Union, Attorney General for India KK Venugopal commenced his submissions by submitting that the suit filed by the State of West Bengal was ex facie not maintainable and that CBI has not been made a party to the suit.Drawing attention on the prayer sought by the State in the suit, AG made specific responses to each of the prayers sought in the suit:First prayer in the suit wherein relief had been sought for declaring the registration of cases by the defendant after withdrawal of notification u/s 6 of the DSPE Act by the plaintiff as unconstitutional and non est - The AG submitted that the Union of India had neither registered a single case nor it had the jurisdiction to register a case. Second prayer wherein relief had been sought for restraining and forbearing the Defendant from registering any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences committed within the territory of the State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act by the State - AG submitted that the Union had nothing to do with the registration or investigation of the cases.Third prayer of declaring the Defendant's action in registering cases after withdrawal of Notification under Section 6 of the DSPE Act by the Plaintiff as violative of Constitution of...

'Union Govt Has No Control Over CBI, West Bengal's Suit Not Maintainable' : AG Tells Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Tags