The Supreme Court clarified that the CBI does not require a State Government’s consent to register an FIR under Central legislation against Central Government employees working within a State’s territory.
On December 2, 2024, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not need consent from a State Government to register an FIR under Central legislation against a Central Government employee working within the territory of that State. This significant ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, which set aside a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Background of the Case
The Controversy
- Two FIRs were filed against Central Government employees in Andhra Pradesh under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
- The accused contended that the general consent granted to the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh was inapplicable post-bifurcation, necessitating fresh consent from the new State of Andhra Pradesh.
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the FIRs, ruling in favor of the accused.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court framed the central question: “If a Central Government employee commits an offence under a Central law while working within a State, does the CBI require consent from the State Government to register an FIR?”
Answer to the Question
The Court held that The High Court erred in interpreting the DSPE Act to mandate the consent of the Andhra Pradesh Government. The 1990 Government Order granting general consent to the CBI under the DSPE Act remained valid and extended to Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation.
Precedents and Supporting Rulings
Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2020)
- The Supreme Court clarified that consent is not required for investigating offences committed within a Union Territory, even if part of the offence is connected to a State.
- It stated: “The DSPE does not require consent for investigation into specified offences involving Union Territory and associated offences, even if the accused resides or works in another State.”
Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2020)
- The Court held that a State’s general consent under the DSPE Act allows CBI investigations into offences originating in another jurisdiction but involving individuals employed in that State.
- It rejected the argument that specific consent was necessary under Section 6 of the DSPE Act when general consent had already been granted.
Supreme Court’s Key Findings
- The Court reiterated its position that laws applicable to the erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh continue to apply to the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, unless specifically amended or repealed.
- The Court emphasized that the 1963 resolution by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which established the CBI, authorizes the agency to investigate offences involving Central Government employees.
- It observed: “Consent from a State Government is not required for investigating offences under Central laws committed by Central Government employees within that State.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the CBI’s authority to investigate the cases. It clarified:
- A State’s general consent under the DSPE Act suffices for the CBI to investigate offences under Central laws involving Central Government employees within that State.
- The Court upheld the CBI’s role as the premier investigative agency for offences involving public servants under the Central Government.
Case: The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023
