SC Rules CBI Can File FIR Without State Consent

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Central Bureau of Investigation does not need state government consent to register cases against Central government officials posted in different states.

This significant decision overturns a previous order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had quashed a CBI investigation into corruption allegations against two Central government employees.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal clarified, “Irrespective of the place of posting, the above factual position shows that they were Central Government employees/Central Government Undertakings and were allegedly guilty of violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is a Central Act.” The court’s judgment underscores that CBI jurisdiction over Central officials cannot be hindered by state boundaries.

Background of the Case

The case began when the CBI registered an FIR against certain Central government employees working in Andhra Pradesh under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused officer challenged the CBI’s jurisdiction, contending that the general consent previously given by the erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, was invalid post the state’s bifurcation.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court had ruled in favor of the accused, quashing the CBI investigation. The High Court reasoned that the lack of explicit consent from the new state government rendered the CBI’s actions unauthorized.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the nature of the alleged offense and the status of the accused as Central government employees placed the matter within the purview of Central jurisdiction. The bench highlighted that since the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Central legislation, investigations concerning violations by Central officials are not contingent on state consent.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has far-reaching implications for anti-corruption efforts and the functioning of the CBI. It reinforces the agency’s authority to act against Central officials without procedural hurdles posed by state governments. The decision is expected to streamline investigations involving Central government employees, ensuring that bureaucratic roadblocks do not impede the fight against corruption.

The judgment also provides clarity on the application of the DSPE Act, affirming that prior consent given by a state remains valid unless expressly revoked. This interpretation ensures continuity in the CBI’s investigative powers in states where general consent has been provided.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s verdict strengthens the mandate of the CBI in pursuing corruption cases against Central officials, reaffirming that accountability and rule of law transcend administrative boundaries.

Read More: Real Life Ricky Bahl: How a Noida Man Defrauded Over 700 Women