Supreme Court Upholds High Courts’ Power to Direct CBI Investigation Without State Consent

Constitution Bench Rules That Judicial Review Under Articles 32 and 226 Empowers Courts to Order CBI Probe in Exceptional Cases Without Violating Federal Structure or Separation of Powers

In a landmark judgment delivered on 17th February 2010, the Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) decisively ruled that High Courts and the Supreme Court have the constitutional authority to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate cognizable offences within a state without requiring the consent of the concerned State Government. This decision settles a long-standing debate over the interplay between federalism, legislative powers, and judicial review in India’s constitutional framework.

The case arose from a public interest writ petition filed by the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (West Bengal) alleging partisan and unfair investigation by the West Bengal State Police into a violent incident in Garbeta, Midnapore district. The High Court of Calcutta, apprehensive of the impartiality of the state police due to political influence, ordered the CBI to take over the investigation without seeking the state government's consent. The State of West Bengal challenged this order, contending that such a direction violated the federal structure of the Constitution and statutory provisions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which require state consent before the CBI can investigate offences within a state.

The Supreme Court, after an exhaustive analysis of constitutional provisions, statutory law, and judicial precedents, upheld the High Court’s power to issue such directions under its writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions or federal considerations. The Court clarified that although legislative and executive powers regarding police and public order are primarily within the domain of the states, the judiciary’s constitutional mandate to protect fundamental rights—including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21—enables it to intervene when justice so demands.

The judgment underscored that the power to direct a CBI investigation is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. Such directions should not be routine or based merely on allegations against local police but reserved for exceptional circumstances where impartiality is in doubt, or when investigations have national or international ramifications, or where fundamental rights enforcement requires it. The Court also rejected the argument that the doctrine of separation of powers prohibits courts from issuing such directions, holding that judicial review is a distinct and essential function of the judiciary to maintain constitutional balance and protect citizen rights.

The Court further elaborated on the constitutional scheme of distribution of powers between the Union and States under Articles 245 and 246 and the Seventh Schedule, emphasizing that while Parliament’s legislative competence over police jurisdiction (Entry 80, List I) is subject to state consent under Section 6 of the Special Police Act, this statutory restriction does not bind the constitutional courts in their writ jurisdiction. Judicial review and enforcement of fundamental rights are paramount and override such legislative or executive restrictions.

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, fundamental rights, and the rule of law. It empowers courts to ensure fair and impartial investigations in criminal matters, even against the backdrop of political pressures or state reluctance. The decision is expected to guide courts in future cases involving requests for CBI intervention and clarifies the constitutional limits of federalism in the context of judicial enforcement of rights.

Statutory provisions

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 Section 6; Constitution of India Articles 13, 14, 19, 21, 32, 136, 142, 144, 226; Indian Penal Code Sections 148, 149, 448, 436, 364, 302, 201; Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25, 27; Explosives Act, 1884 Section 9B

State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 207848