‘CBI An Independent Agency, West Bengal's Suit Not Maintainable Against Union Govt’: SG Tushar Mehta To Supreme Court

The Union of India on Thursday (November 9) questioned the maintainability of an original suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) allegedly continuing to register and investigate cases in the State even after the State government withdrew the general consent for the central agency. Raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Aravind Kumar that no cause of action arose against the central government, arguing that the Central Bureau of Investigation was an independent agency. He explained that Article 131, which conferred original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, could only be invoked to settle disputes between federal units of governance, and the enlarged definition of ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 would not extend to it, referring to a number of judicial precedents. Then, he argued – “Article 131 of the Constitution is a remedy for deciding disputes between federal units of governance. No other party can be joined in a suit under Article 131. Here, there is no cause of action against the Union of India because the CBI is an independent agency. The bureau is not a limb of the central government, but the respondent in this suit is the Union of India through the Department of Personnel and Training. The DoPT has nothing to do with registration, investigation, or prosecution of cases by the CBI…If the department cannot direct the registration of a case or setting aside of the registered offence, nor direct the manner of investigation, how will the cause of action arise against it?” Not only this, but the union government is prohibited from directing or monitoring a CBI probe, the law officer added, pointing to the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Although after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineet Narain (1997), the central agency was placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the commission does not supervise the manner of investigation, he said. Invoking Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013 which lays down the lack of a cause of action as a ground for the dismissal of suits, the solicitor general argued – “Even the CVC has only administrative supervision, and not supervision in terms of merit. The idea of Vineet Narain was to bring the Central Bureau of Investigation under the supervision of a separate statutory body and insulate it from the central government. The DoPT has not registered any case, nor can it. Therefore, there is no cause of action and according to the Supreme Court rules, this suit is liable to be dismissed.” The other ground on which the Union of India raised a preliminary objection was the pendency of collateral proceedings arising out of the same cause of action. He illustrated this point by referring to a pending special leave petition against a 2021 Calcutta High Court verdict directing a CBI investigation into allegations of post-poll violence in 2021. “Can they maintain a proceeding under Article 131 when the same cause of action is pending in collateral proceedings, a fact that has been wilfully and deliberately suppressed? The suit is fraudulent and liable to be dismissed only on that ground. Even if the facts are different but the question of law is the same...the suit is liable to be dismissed on grounds of the principle of res sub judice.” Additionally, the law officer argued that several of the cases, which the state government had cited in support of its contention about the Central Bureau of Investigation acting without jurisdiction, had been registered on the strength of a direction either by the Calcutta High Court, the Central Vigilance Commission, or the Supreme Court itself. He also pointed out that the Central Bureau of Investigation itself was not impleaded as a party to West Bengal’s original suit.The SG also said that in the event of the Court holding the suit maintainable, the Union Government proposed to serve interrogatories on the State on how the decision to institute the suit was taken and approved and seeking the relevant files and papers. "A message should go that before highest court of the land, you cannot suppress facts or employ tricks...," he said. Suit has nothing to do with CBI which is only a repository of the powers conferred by central government: Kapil Sibal Right at the outset of his submissions, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State of West Bengal took objection to the aspersions cast by the solicitor-general on its motives. “The Union of India, especially in the context of federalism, should not use harsh words about the motive of the state government...calling it mischievous, fraudulent…I did not expect this from my learned friend,” the senior counsel exclaimed. The main thrust ...

‘CBI An Independent Agency, West Bengal's Suit Not Maintainable Against Union Govt’: SG Tushar Mehta To Supreme Court

Awstika Das

Tags