State Of West Bengal Urges Supreme Court To Urgently Hear Its Suit Against Union Over CBI's Powers

The plea revolves around allegations of the CBI's continued registration and investigation of cases in West Bengal, despite the state government's withdrawal of general consent for the central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

Before a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Sibal mentioned this case, arguing that it has seen about nine adjournments recently. Asking for directions to list the matter for hearing on a regular hearing day, i.e., on a Wednesday or a Thursday -

“The suit against the Union of India is over the powers of the Central Bureau of Investigation and whether it can continue filing FIRs even though consent has been withdrawn. This matter has been coming up before Justice BR Gavai's bench and has been adjourned about nine times. It cannot be admitted because it's not a special leave petition. On a Tuesday, it cannot be heard. So, would my Lords be kind enough to allow us to move the court for a hearing on a Wednesday and a Thursday? I mentioned this before the bench, which asked me to get the chief justice's order.”

Appearing for the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, pointed out that the matter, after being heard for two days, had been “released from part-heard”. The law officer also added that next week, Attorney General R Venkataramani and he would be assisting the court in the nine-judges' bench matter dealing with a challenge to the Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1992 and the rules framed under the statute, which imposed additional cess and taxes on land revenue due from mineral-bearing lands.

“This is a two-year-old suit…It can wait for a few days,” SG Mehta insisted.

“It cannot. It's a suit from 2021, and it is 2024 now. And every time, my learned friend asks for an adjournment,” Sibal exclaimed.

Although the chief justice refused to pass any orders, he promised to discuss this with Justice Gavai. “I am not in charge of that matter. It's before that bench, and it will take a call.”

During the last hearing, the Union of India, represented by Solicitor-General Mehta, raised objections to the suit's maintainability under Article 131 of the Constitution. He argued that the CBI was an independent agency, and therefore, no cause of action arose against the central government. He emphasised that Article 131 was designed to settle disputes between federal units of governance and did not extend to the CBI, which he stated was not a limb of the central government.

On behalf of West Bengal, Sibal, refuted Mehta's arguments, contesting the notion that the CBI was completely insulated from the central government. The original suit, he clarified, was not about challenging individual cases but questioning the CBI's jurisdiction to investigate after the state government withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. He argued that the continued investigation by the CBI after the withdrawal of consent was a violation of the principle of federalism, a core tenet of the Constitution.