The Supreme Court ruled that the CBI does not need state government consent to file an FIR against Central Government employees for offenses under Central Acts, even if they are in a specific state. This decision overturns a previous High Court ruling and reinforces the CBI’s jurisdiction in such cases, which can be investigated regardless of state boundaries.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clarified that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not require the State Government’s consent to register an FIR for offences under a Central Act when the accused is a Central Government employee or works for a Central Government Undertaking, even if they are posted within a specific state.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal made this observation while hearing appeals filed by the CBI against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The apex court held:
“The question is in such circumstances merely because such an employee works within the territory of a particular State, to register an FIR by the CBI in connection with commission of an offence under a Central Act whether consent from the State Government concerned is required or not? The said question is no longer a legal conundrum in view of the decisions of this Court in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors. and in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra).”
Background of the Case
- The appeals involved two corruption cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Initially investigated in Hyderabad, the cases were later transferred to Visakhapatnam and Kurnool.
- The accused argued that the CBI lacked the required consent from the Andhra Pradesh Government and challenged the jurisdiction of the CBI Court in Hyderabad.
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the CBI proceedings, citing the absence of state consent and the lack of notification designating the Hyderabad CBI Court as a special court under Section 4 of the PC Act.
Read Also: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Rape Accused Citing Complainant’s Past Allegations and Evidence
The Supreme Court noted that prior to the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the state government had issued a general consent order allowing the CBI to investigate within the entire state.
- On Special Court Notification: “The High Court had erred in holding that there was no notification issued conferring the status of Special Court in terms of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court, Hyderabad.”
- On Applicability of Laws Post-Bifurcation: The court emphasized that laws applicable to the undivided Andhra Pradesh on June 1, 2014, would continue in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh until amended or repealed.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, ruling that the FIRs and proceedings quashed by the High Court could not be sustained. The appeals filed by the CBI were allowed.
This decision reinforces the CBI’s jurisdiction in investigating offences under Central Acts, irrespective of the state employee’s location.
Cause Title- The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 11)
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
