Close
The Supreme Court recently got engaged in a detailed deliberation over the maintainability of a lawsuit. It happened after the State of West Bengal’s suit against the center (Union government). The lawsuit targeted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The suit against the center was filed in 2021. It alleges that despite West Bengal revoking its general consent for CBI investigations in November 2018, the agency persisted in registering and probing cases within the state.
Under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution, the state’s plea was presented. This invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in disputes involving the Centre and one or more states.
During a three-day hearing headed by Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta challenged the suit’s admissibility. He primarily contended that the CBI holds a distinct legal identity apart from the Union of India.
The Solicitor General asserted that the CBI functions as an independent entity. He emphasized that the Union government had not personally initiated any investigations within West Bengal.
SG argued that since the CBI acts under its own authority and not directly under the Union, any action against the Centre in this regard should be deemed unwarranted. Mehta further spotlighted the alleged suppression of crucial facts within the state’s suit.
Those were particularly related to CBI investigations prompted by orders from the Calcutta High Court. He contended that this suppression warranted the dismissal of the suit. It especially considered pending Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging the High Court’s directives.
In his defense, Mehta referenced the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946. The act delineates the CBI’s jurisdiction and supervisory roles. It asserts that the agency’s operations do not fall directly under Union government oversight.
He cited past judicial precedents as well. Mehta highlighted the need for disputes under Article 131 to strictly involve the Union of India and one or more states.
On the other side of the legal spectrum, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, contended that the CBI’s actions necessitate prior consent from states, given the federal structure of governance in India.
Sibal underlined the nuanced administrative and legislative nuances governing the CBI’s reach into state matters. He argued that the agency’s operations should not exceed state sovereignty.
The Supreme Court’s analysis of this complex legal matter will continue. It’ll happen with additional arguments expected to further shape the trajectory of this pivotal dispute. The outcome could significantly influence the dynamics between state and central agencies in future investigations and legal proceedings.
Bengal’s suit against the center will set a critical precedent for federal governance and state autonomy in India. This legal showdown underscores broader questions surrounding the powers and limitations of federal investigative bodies like the CBI.
Stay tuned at Rajesh Kshetry for more such news information.
Mr. Kshetry is dedicated to providing world-class legal services. he employ exceptionally talented lawyers with outstanding academic and personal achievements.
