In a big win for Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court has said the CBI does not require the permission of State Governments to register an FIR against Central Government officials posted in the different jurisdictions of States. A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal on January 2 overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order quashing the CBI investigations against two Central government employees over corruption.

CBI is governed by Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act of 1946. According to this archaic Act, CBI needs “General Consent” from each States to start probe. Due to this provision, even in Central Government offices, CBI can’t enter and many Opposition party ruled States denied “General Consent” to CBI, which is empowered to probe against corruption in Central Government offices.

“Irrespective of the place of posting, the aforesaid factual position would go onto show that they were Central government employees/Central government undertaking employees and allegedly committed serious offence under PC Act, which is a central act,” said the Order of the top court, giving free hand to CBI.

The case stemmed from the CBI FIRs against the Central Government employees working in Andhra Pradesh. They had challenged the CBI’s jurisdiction in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arguing the general consent granted to the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), by the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh did not automatically extend to the newly formed state of Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation.

The High Court agreed with the accused, who were booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and quashed the FIRs insisting a fresh consent from Andhra Pradesh was required.  Justice Ravikumar, who authored a 32-page judgment, differed with the High Court’s interpretation, and ruled the latter had erred in asking for a fresh state consent for CBI’s investigations.

The top court framed a question -- if the CBI required the State Government’s consent to register an FIR against a Central Government employee under a Central Act simply because the employee worked within the territory of a State — as the central issue.

It held no such consent was necessary as the offences in question were under a central legislation and involved Central Government employees.

The consent regime under Section 6 of the DSPE Act was not designed to obstruct investigations into central offences only because they transpired within a state’s territorial limits, said the top court. The bench said the ‘General Consent’ granted by a State under the DSPE Act was sufficient for the CBI investigations involving central offences and state-specific formalities, such as a fresh consent, was not required.  “We are of the firm view that the impugned judgment where under subject FIRs and further proceedings in pursuance thereof, were quashed cannot be sustained,” it said and allowed CBI’s appeal.