The West Bengal government presented its case before the Supreme Court Today (May 2nd), opposing CBI investigations in the state. They argued that when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is permitted to conduct probes within a state, it’s often followed by the involvement of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: During a hearing before the Supreme Court today, the West Bengal government vehemently opposed the conduct of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probes within the state, asserting that allowing CBI entry sets a precedent for subsequent Enforcement Directorate (ED) interventions.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, underscored the significant ramifications of such investigative actions on the Indian polity, before a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The legal proceedings unfolded within the framework of an original suit filed by the West Bengal government against the Central government, alleging the misuse of CBI in state matters. Sibal reiterated the state’s position, emphasizing that CBI investigations within West Bengal necessitate general consent from the state government to uphold the federal structure.
“We are dealing with a statute [Delhi Special Police Establishment Act] that impacts the federal structure of this country. [General] Consent is necessary before you get entry in the State,”
-he argued.
In elaborating on the implications, Sibal articulated,
“Once you give a foothold to the CBI in a State, soon after the ED [Enforcement Directorate] also enters for investigating the predicate offence. It has huge ramifications on the polity of this country.”
This contention sheds light on the interconnected nature of CBI and ED interventions, positing that permitting one agency’s entry often paves the way for the involvement of others, thereby influencing the political landscape significantly.
The crux of the West Bengal government’s argument lies in its withdrawal of general consent for CBI investigations, rendering any such probes within the state impermissible without explicit consent. This legal stance forms the basis of the suit filed against the Central government, serving as a rebuttal to CBI’s investigative activities within West Bengal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated the former’s stance, asserting today that the original suit filed by the West Bengal government lacks merit and should be dismissed outright.
Mehta underscored the independence of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), emphasizing that it operates autonomously and does not fall under the purview of the Central government. He contended that suing the Central government in this matter is untenable, as the CBI cannot be the subject of an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution.
“CBI is not under Centre and cannot be subject of an original suit. Instrumentality of State can also not be a defendant. Union does not register any (CBI) case,”
-Mehta asserted, highlighting the legal intricacies at play.
Moreover, Mehta accused the West Bengal government of duplicity, alleging that it concealed crucial information from the Court by litigating the same issue in two separate cases before the Supreme Court.
“Second limb of my submissions is, how can you suppress important documents before the highest court of the country? This is grounds for dismissal of the suit at the threshold,”
–Mehta, who appeared with Advocate Kanu Agarwal today, contended.
In response, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, invoked Section 4(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), to argue that the CBI falls under the superintendence of the Central government. He contended that this statutory provision warrants the Central government’s inclusion as a defendant in the suit.
“It says ‘Central government.’ That is why we are here. Prime Minister is often leading the DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) and does not answer questions in Parliament. Who says to the agency do not enter (a State)? The Union! It (CBI) is not independent.”
Sibal refuted the notion of the CBI’s independence, asserting that it operates as an arm of the government and is subject to governmental oversight. He emphasized that while the CBI may be regulated by statute, it is not an independent statutory authority in itself.
“It (CBI) is an arm of the government. Even police is the investigative arm of the State government. They are regulated by statute but are not a statutory authority in itself,”
–Sibal argued.
Furthermore, Sibal rejected the Central government’s accusation of multiple litigations on the same issue, clarifying that while one case involves an original suit, the other pertains to an appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court order for a CBI probe into post-poll violence.
“They cannot say because 136 (Special Leave petition to appeal) is pending, then 131 (original suit) cannot be exercised and it will come back to haunt me. If we had withdrawn, they would say we have given up challenge; if we did not appeal, they would say we are not aggrieved. (Article) 136 power is discretionary, (Article) 131 is Constitutional and mandatory,”
–Sibal said.
As the legal battle unfolds, the Court will continue the hearing on May 9, underscoring the complexity and significance of the issues at stake in this high-profile dispute.
This legal battle emerges from a broader context, marked by heightened political tensions surrounding CBI’s probe into election-related violence in the state.
As the legal proceedings unfold, they not only address the immediate dispute but also delve into fundamental questions regarding the balance of power between central and state agencies within India’s federal structure.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on- State of West Bengal vs Union of India
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on West Bengal government
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
