The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the maintainability of West Bengal’s suit, which alleges the Centre’s misuse of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta concluded the hearing of rejoinder arguments presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing the State and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta representing the Union government.
NEW DELHI: Today (8th May): The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the maintainability of the original suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Central Government over allegations of misuse of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The suit, filed by the Trinamool Congress Government, argues that the State has withdrawn general consent for the CBI to investigate cases, thereby preventing the agency from proceeding with probes in West Bengal.
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta concluded the hearing of rejoinder arguments presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing the State and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta representing the Union government.
During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the ED’s entry into a State is primarily to assist in counting the large amounts of cash seized from money laundering suspects. However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal refuted this claim and argued that the State should have approached the Supreme Court instead of the High Court, as the relief sought would be delayed in the latter.
The Solicitor General contended that there was no cause of action in the State’s suit, which could lead to its rejection. He further highlighted that the administrative control of the CBI lies with its Director, and not the Union Government. The Bench questioned the Solicitor General on the authority responsible for enforcing the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, under which the CBI operates.
Sibal countered the SG’s initial objection, arguing against the notion that the State should have approached the High Court instead of the Supreme Court.
“If Article 226 is pursued, the relief would be delayed, possibly until after the probe concludes. This delay contradicts our constitutional framework. Following my colleague’s suggestion would undermine the federal structure of our nation.”
SG Mehta asserted that the State’s case lacked a cause of action, warranting its dismissal.
“Just because the Central government establishes High Courts, such as recently in Telangana, does not imply control. There must be a proper establishment. The Central government cannot dictate the registration of a CBI FIR.”
The SG emphasized that the administrative authority over the central agency lies with its Director, rather than the Union government.
“CBI has not been included as a party, as it is well understood that it cannot be. It is inaccurate to categorize CBI as solely a police force of the Union. CBI is distinct from that.”
READ ALSO: Delhi HC Addresses ‘Defamation Dispute’ Between Advocate Dehadrai and TMC’s Mahua Moitra
The Court allowed the parties to file written application on their rejoinder submissions and reserved its verdict on the maintainability of the suit. The case originated from the State Legislative Assembly elections in West Bengal in May 2021, where violence erupted, resulting in people being displaced from their homes.
The Calcutta High Court ordered the formation of a committee to facilitate the return of those affected. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) intervened, forming a committee to investigate the post-poll violence and recommending a CBI probe, which the State government contested.
