The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an “independent body” and the Centre has “no superintendence or control over it”, the Union government told the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The Centre made the remarks before a bench of justices BR Gavai and Aravind Kumar while opposing a petition by the West Bengal government that accused CBI of launching investigations without the state’s consent. In November 2018, the state government withdrew its general consent, under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, to the federal agency to probe cases.
The Bengal government has filed a suit in the apex court against the Centre under Article 131 of the Constitution, which empowers a state to move the Supreme Court directly in case of dispute with the Centre or any other state. It also urged the court to issue directions to the Centre to stop CBI’s probe into 12 cases.
Terming the suit “mischievous” for including the Centre, through the department of personnel and training (DoPT), Centre’s counsel and solicitor general Tushar Mehta said: “CBI is not central government. If you want relief against CBI, you have to file against CBI. We have no superintendence or control over it. It is an independent body.”
To this, the bench said: “But administratively, it is under your (Centre) control. We understand that in the manner of investigation, CBI will have absolute freedom.”
Mehta explained that as per the Allocation of Business Rules of the Union government, CBI falls under the DoPT but it (DoPT) does not exercise any “functional control” over the agency as far as investigation of cases is concerned.
{{/usCountry}}Mehta explained that as per the Allocation of Business Rules of the Union government, CBI falls under the DoPT but it (DoPT) does not exercise any “functional control” over the agency as far as investigation of cases is concerned.
{{/usCountry}}“The Union government cannot direct investigation or monitor prosecution as in a case, some ministers in the central government can be accused,” Mehta said, pointing out that DoPT is merely a cadre-controlling authority. DoPT only deals with transfer, appointment or repatriation of officials of the probe agency, he said.
The solicitor general sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that there is no cause of action against the Centre. “If DoPT cannot direct registration of offence, setting aside of an offence, or monitoring of investigation, how can the suit lie against DoPT,” he said.
He sought dismissal of the suit on the ground there is no cause of action against Centre, claiming, “If DoPT cannot direct registration of offence, setting aside of an offence, or monitoring of investigation, how can the suit lie against DoPT.”
Appearing for the Bengal government, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the relief sought in the suit is not against CBI but against Centre, which has the power to determine the jurisdiction of cases to be investigated by the federal agency under the DSPE Act. He also said there cannot be any investigation by CBI once the general consent has been withdrawn.
“It is one thing to exercise superintendence over CBI’s investigation, which is the role of CVC (Central Vigilance Commission), but quite a different thing to say Centre has nothing to do with CBI,” Sibal said.
He termed the Centre’s argument “unique” and an instance of “conceptual confusion”, pointing out that CBI’s jurisdiction to probe cases was determined through a notification issued by the Centre, unlike other agencies such as the National Investigation Agency or the Enforcement Directorate, which derived their investigating powers under a statute.
The court will continue hearing the matter on November 23.