Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Federalism Undermined by CBI Actions Post-Consent Withdrawal: Supreme Court in Landmark West Bengal Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court affirms maintainability of West Bengal's suit challenging CBI's jurisdiction under Article 131.

The Supreme Court of India has rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Union of India regarding the maintainability of the suit filed by the State of West Bengal. The suit, filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, challenges the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register and investigate cases in West Bengal following the state's withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act. The Court's decision underscores the legal complexities and federal dynamics involved in the exercise of investigative powers by central agencies in states.

The State of West Bengal filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking several declarations and reliefs, including the declaration that registration of cases by the CBI after the withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is unconstitutional. The state also sought to restrain the CBI from investigating cases in West Bengal post-withdrawal of consent, arguing that such actions violate the Constitution and the principle of federalism.

The Supreme Court reiterated its exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131, which allows states to bring suits directly to the apex court for disputes involving legal rights against the Union of India or other states. The Court referenced previous judgments, including the State of Bihar v. Union of India and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, to underline that disputes under Article 131 must involve legal rights and not merely political issues​​.

The Court emphasized that for considering preliminary objections, only the averments made in the plaint should be looked into to determine if a cause of action is made out. The Court noted that the State of West Bengal had made substantial averments regarding the CBI's jurisdiction and the procedural requirements under the DSPE Act, which necessitate state consent for CBI investigations within its territory​​.

The judgment highlighted the legislative framework governing CBI's operations under the DSPE Act, noting the requirement of state consent as per Section 6 of the Act. The Court also addressed the interpretation of the term "subject to the provisions of this Constitution" in Article 131, rejecting the Union's argument that ongoing proceedings under Articles 32, 136, or 226 preclude a suit under Article 131​​.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the State of West Bengal had established a prima facie legal right to challenge the CBI's jurisdiction following the withdrawal of consent. The Court rejected the Union's contention that the suit was non-maintainable due to the involvement of procedural and jurisdictional issues already pending in other courts​​.

The Court clarified the distinction between the State as a political entity and the State Government, emphasizing that the suit involves the State's legal rights under the federal structure of the Constitution. This interpretation reinforces the principle that states can seek judicial review of the Union Government's powers impacting their jurisdiction​​.

Justice B.R. Gavai, delivering the judgment, remarked, "The interpretation as placed by the defendant - Union of India would not be in consonance with the constitutional scheme and as such, is liable to be rejected"​​. The judgment also cited Justice Chandrachud's observations from a previous case, underscoring that disputes under Article 131 must involve legal rights and not mere political issues​​.

The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Union of India's preliminary objections allows the State of West Bengal's suit to proceed on its merits. This landmark decision underscores the Court's role in adjudicating federal disputes and upholding the constitutional balance of power between the Union and the States. The suit's outcome could have significant implications for the jurisdiction and operational scope of central investigative agencies within states, reinforcing the necessity of state consent under federal principles.

 

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

State of West Bengal vs. Union of India

Similar News