New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday held as maintainable a petition filed by the West Bengal government alleging that the CBI was continuing its investigations in several cases despite the state's withdrawal of general consent on November 16, 2018.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Center regarding maintainability of the suit.
"The suit will proceed in accordance with the law on its own merits," Judge Gavai said in issuing the operative part of the order.
"We clarify that the aforesaid findings are intended to decide the preliminary objections raised by the respondent (Union of India). However, the same will have no significance when the suit is decided on its own merits," the top court said.
The problem with the formulation of the questions on August 13 was solved.
On May 8, the high court had reserved its decision on the maintainability of the suit.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal, had argued that once the state withdrew its consent on November 16, 2018, the Center could not allow the probe agency to enter the state to conduct an investigation.
During the arguments, Sibal had referred to the provisions of the Delhi Police Special Establishment (DPSE) Act, 1946 and said, "We (the state) have informed your Lordships about the cause of action. You ( CBI) cannot enter my state without my consent and you cannot do it suo motu (on your own).”
He had said that the consent of the state government must be obtained for the CBI to exercise power.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said the Union government or its departments do not exercise any supervisory control over the investigations of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Mehta had said there was no cause of action against the Center in this matter.
"The Do (Department of Personnel and Training) never registers a case," he said, adding, "The Do cannot direct the registration of an FIR. Nor can any other central government department supervise the investigation."
The Center had told the top court that the CBI was not under the "control" of the Union and that the government cannot supervise either the registration of a crime by the agency or its investigation.
The Center had raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the suit filed by the West Bengal government, holding that there was no cause of action against the Union of India.
The West Bengal government has filed an original complaint in the high court against the Center under Article 131 of the Constitution, alleging that the CBI has been lodging FIRs and proceeding with investigations even though the state has withdrawn general consent to the federal agency to investigate the cases. within its territorial jurisdiction.
Article 131 deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a dispute between the Center and one or more states.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Center regarding maintainability of the suit.
"The suit will proceed in accordance with the law on its own merits," Judge Gavai said in issuing the operative part of the order.
"We clarify that the aforesaid findings are intended to decide the preliminary objections raised by the respondent (Union of India). However, the same will have no significance when the suit is decided on its own merits," the top court said.
The problem with the formulation of the questions on August 13 was solved.
On May 8, the high court had reserved its decision on the maintainability of the suit.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal, had argued that once the state withdrew its consent on November 16, 2018, the Center could not allow the probe agency to enter the state to conduct an investigation.
During the arguments, Sibal had referred to the provisions of the Delhi Police Special Establishment (DPSE) Act, 1946 and said, "We (the state) have informed your Lordships about the cause of action. You ( CBI) cannot enter my state without my consent and you cannot do it suo motu (on your own).”
He had said that the consent of the state government must be obtained for the CBI to exercise power.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said the Union government or its departments do not exercise any supervisory control over the investigations of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Mehta had said there was no cause of action against the Center in this matter.
"The Do (Department of Personnel and Training) never registers a case," he said, adding, "The Do cannot direct the registration of an FIR. Nor can any other central government department supervise the investigation."
The Center had told the top court that the CBI was not under the "control" of the Union and that the government cannot supervise either the registration of a crime by the agency or its investigation.
The Center had raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the suit filed by the West Bengal government, holding that there was no cause of action against the Union of India.
The West Bengal government has filed an original complaint in the high court against the Center under Article 131 of the Constitution, alleging that the CBI has been lodging FIRs and proceeding with investigations even though the state has withdrawn general consent to the federal agency to investigate the cases. within its territorial jurisdiction.
Article 131 deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a dispute between the Center and one or more states.
