CBI Independent From Union Govt, West Bengal's Suit Against Centre Not Maintainable : SG Tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (today on May 02) heard the Union's preliminary objection to the maintainability of the original suit filed by the State of West Bengal in 2021 alleging that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) continued to register and investigate cases despite its revocation of the general consent. It was in November 2018 when the State government withdrew its consent that allowed the CBI to conduct investigations of cases in West Bengal. The State has contended that despite the revocation of the consent for the central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946, the CBI continued to register FIRs in respect of offences which took place within the State. The present suit has been filed under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states. A three-long hearing before a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta witnessed the preliminary objections raised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta regarding the suit's maintainability under Article 131. The Solicitor General primarily raised two arguments. First, CBI is an independent legal person and has a separate legal identity outside the Union of India. Second, the suppression of the fact that several FIRs were registered by the CBI pursuant to the orders of the Calcutta High Court. Based on this, Mehta fervently argued that the suppression of the facts must lead to the dismissal of the suit. Since the State's Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 challenging the HC orders are pending, a similar issue cannot be raised in a suit under Article 131. “Suppose, if a similar issue is pending, say in SLP, and is also brought by the same party before this Court under Article 131, there is likelihood of conflicting views in the SLP and the suit….So, if there is other jurisdiction under the constitution then original jurisdiction will not be entertained.” This was said in the context of a pending special leave petition before the Top Court against a 2021 Calcutta High Court verdict directing a CBI investigation into allegations of post-poll violence in 2021. Union Has Not Registered Any Case In The State At the outset, Mehta submitted that Article 131 is the most sacred jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Taking a cue from this, he said that the principles that would govern entertaining or dismissing the present suit “will have to be examined more rigorously.” Mehta also argued that the suit has been filed against the Union, however, the latter has not registered any case and the same has been done by the CBI. Reading the reliefs sought under the present suit, Mehta said that they are against the CBI that could not have been made a party under Article 131. “It is submitted that the Union of India has neither registered any case in the State, neither can it register any case , nor it has been investigating any case. Yet, as it is evident from the prayer…each and every prayer is directed either restraining UOI from investigating any case or quashing any case where UOI has allegedly registered FIRs. On the other hand, as per the pending proceedings, it is the CBI which has registered FIRs and is investigating cases. However, the CBI is not made a party to the suit as obviously made party to the Suit considering the mandate of Article 131.” He went on to submit that even if the present suit is decreed in favor of the State, the same will remain “unenforceable” against the present defendant, i.e., the Union. To support this, Mehta relied upon a five-judge bench decision in the State of Bihar v. Union of India wherein, with respect to Article 131, it was observed: “This is, therefore, an intrinsic circumstance which shows that the founding fathers of the Constitution intended that the dispute should be contained only to the Government of India and the States as a polity or a constituent unit of the republic instead of bringing in dispute raised by the Government run by a particular Council of Ministers which does not pertain to the State as such.” Subsequently, in the hearing, Mehta also read out the relevant paragraphs of the seven-judge bench decision in the State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs Union Of India. Herein, the Court had opined that the true construction of Article 131(a) is that a dispute must arise between the Union of India and a State. One of the paragraphs highlighted by Mehta was: “There are two limitations in regard to the nature of the suit which can be entertained by the Supreme Court under this Article. One is in regard to parties and the other is in regard to the subject matter. The Article provides in so many terms in clauses (a), (b) and (c) that the dispute must be between the Government of India and one or more States, or between the Government of India and any other State or States on one side...

CBI Independent From Union Govt, West Bengal's Suit Against Centre Not Maintainable : SG Tells Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags