Why in News?  The Supreme Court has recently upheld the maintainability of the West Bengal government’s suit accusing the Union government of “constitutional overreach” by employing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register and investigate cases in the State despite its withdrawal of general consent on November 16, 2018.

A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta rejected the Centre’s preliminary objections that it was wrongly made a defendant in the suit as it did not control the CBI, which was an “independent agency.” Perusing various provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, under which the CBI functions, the Bench concluded “the very establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, the superintendence of the DSPE [Act], all vest with the Government of India.”

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the suit discloses a valid cause of action and must be heard on merits. It posted the matter for hearing next on August 13, for the framing of issues.

Revocation of general consent:

Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the CBI is required to obtain consent from the concerned State government before initiating an investigation within its jurisdiction. This permission is crucial since “police” and “public order” are subjects that fall within the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. However, no such prior consent is necessary in Union territories or railway areas.

Original suit:

• In August 2021, the West Bengal government filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution arguing that the actions of the Union government and the involvement of the CBI in the State infringed upon its sovereignty.

In State Of Karnataka v. Union Of India (1977), the Supreme Court observed that Article 131 is a feature of federalism and should be “widely and generously interpreted” to advance the intended remedy. Similarly, in State Of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union Of India (1977), the top Court cautioned against taking a very “restrictive or a hyper-technical view of the State’s rights.”

Arguments:

• Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, pressed the Court to dismiss West Bengal’s suit by raising preliminary objections to its maintainability. He pointed out that original suits under Article 131 of the Constitution exclusively involve the Union and States as parties.
• “It is the CBI which has registered the cases in question. But the CBI is not a defendant in this suit, and it cannot be made one, as the CBI is not a ‘State’ under Article 131.
• He further argued that the CBI was an “independent agency” since it did not function under the direct control of the Union government. “The Union does not supervise the registration of offences or investigation or closure or filing of chargesheet or conviction or acquittal of cases by the CBI.
• However, later in the proceedings, Mr. Mehta finally conceded that the central agency cannot initiate any investigation without the express authorisation of the Union government under Section 5 of the DSPE Act.

The verdict:

• The Court observed that a bare perusal of the provisions of the DSPE Act reveals that right from the constitution of the CBI, the classes of offences which are to be investigated by it, to its administration and powers, it is the “Central government that it is vitally concerned with.”
• “Under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, except the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which the superintendence will be with the Central Vigilance Commission, the superintendence of the DSPE in all other matters would vest with the Central government.
• The judge also reminded the Centre that Section 6 of the DSPE Act mandates the prior consent of the State government to a CBI probe within its jurisdiction.
• While the Court recognized that the CBI would always be entitled to investigate offences independently, it underscored that this autonomy “would not water down” its administrative control and superintendence that vests with the Centre.
• It thus proceeded to conclude that the Solicitor General’s argument that the CBI is an “independent agency” holds no water.

The verdict, however, clarified that these observations were only made to meet the preliminary objections raised by the Union government and would not have any bearing on the merits of the suit.

 About Art 131:

Article 131 of the Indian Constitution deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India in disputes between the Government of India and one or more states, or between two or more states. This means that the Supreme Court can directly hear cases that involve disputes of this nature, without them having to go through lower courts first.

Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has the authority to hear disputes directly.

Types of Disputes: The disputes must be between:

• The Government of India and one or more states.
• Between two or more states.

Nature of Disputes: The disputes can involve questions of law or fact.