West Bengal's Suit Against Union Govt Challenging Suo Motu Registration Of Cases In The State By CBI Maintainable: Supreme Court

Rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the Union, the bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, held that the plaint of the State of West Bengal disclosed a cause of action. The bench also rejected the argument taken by the Union that the State had suppressed material facts in the plaint.

It may be noted that the suit was challenging the suo motu registration of CBI FIRs and not the registration of CBI FIRs under the directions of Courts.

The bench said that to determine the maintainability, only the averments in the plaint can be looked at. It is the case of the State that after the withdrawal of general consent for the CBI in 2018, the agency could not have continued to register FIRs in respect of the offences within the State. The State also contended that the CBI is functioning under the superintendence of the Central Government. The bench held that for the purpose of determining whether the suit is maintainable and it disclosed any cause of action, the averments in the plaint have to be taken at the face value.

"We find the present suit is raising a legal issue whether after the withdrawal of the general consent, the CBI can continue to register FIRs and investigate cases in violation of section 6 of DSPE act...," the bench stated while orally reading out the operative portion. The bench stated that the suit will proceed and its present findings are only for the purpose of determining the maintainability and will have no bearing on deciding the suit finally.

In the judgment, addressing the Union's argument that the suit against it was not maintainable in respect of the CBI's action, the Court held that the CBI is under the administrative control of the Union Government.

The matter is next posted in August 13 for the framing of issues.

 It may be recalled that it was in November 2018 when the State government withdrew its consent that allowed the CBI to conduct investigations of cases in West Bengal.

The suit was filed against the Union under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states.

In its suit, the State contended that despite revocation of its consent for the central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946, the CBI continued to register FIRs in respect to offences that took place within the State.

The Court had heard the matter in detail on two occasions before reserving its verdict on May 08. 

Preliminary Objections Raised By The Union

The hearing witnesses preliminary objections raised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta regarding the suit's maintainability under Article 131.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, argued that Article 131 was designed to settle disputes between federal units of government and did not extend to the CBI, which was not a limb of the central government.

Mehta also argued that the suit has been filed against the Union, however, the latter has not registered any case and the same has been done by the CBI. He tried to bolster his arguments by stressing that the CBI is an independent legal person and has a separate legal identity outside the Union of India.

The second major argument he made was that the facts were suppressed. He argued that the FIRs, as shown in the suit, also contained the ones registered by the CBI following the order of the High Court. Based on this, Mehta contended that the suit ought to be dismissed on a preliminary ground that the basic facts are neither disclosed nor even indicated, which would constitute the cause of action.

Arguments Advanced by The State Of West Bengal

Per contra, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of West Bengal, argued that the preliminary objections raised by the Union cannot be delved into by the Court at this stage. Reasoning this, he said that at this stage the Court needs to decide whether this plaint discloses the cause of action or not.

Apart from this, he had fervently countered the objections made by the Union. He had submitted that the Union cannot allow its investigating agency to enter the State once the consent has been withdrawn. Sibal also contended that consent to the CBI is a privilege granted by the State.

In respect of Article 131, Sibal submitted that the same provides for an independent adjudication in case of federal disputes and should be widely interpreted to advance the remedy. In this context, Sibal also argued that the word used in the Article is "shall". Thus, there cannot be a stay because there are other proceedings pending before the High Court or the Top Court.

Another argument that attracted the spotlight was that the supervision of the police establishment is with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), as per the administrative structure of the Union. Sibal also stated that when a question on CBI is asked in the Parliament, it is answered by the DoPT.

“In the administrative structure of the Union of India, the supervision of the police establishment is with the department of personnel and training (DOPT). So, if a question is asked in the parliament about the CBI, who stands up?...the cabinet minister of the DOPT is the prime minister. Seldom does the PM stand up and answer, it is the minister of State.,” Sibal argued.

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Union of India | Original Suit No. 4 of 2021

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 451