Federal Disputes under Article 131•3 min read•2024 INSC 502

State of West Bengal v. Union of India

Bench: Division Bench (B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.)
Constitutional & Constitution Bench Matters
Read the full judgment on Indian Kanoon
Core Legal Ratio Decidendi

"A State's suit under Article 131 challenging CBI investigations within its territory after it has withdrawn consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is maintainable against the Union, because the CBI is under the Union's superintendence outside corruption cases and the dispute concerns the State's legal right to control policing within its territory."

I
Step 1

Issues Before the Court

  1. (i)

    Whether a suit by the State of West Bengal under Article 131, complaining that the CBI continued to register and investigate cases in the State after the State had withdrawn its general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, was maintainable against the Union of India?

  2. (ii)

    Whether the CBI is under the superintendence of the Union, so that the Union is the proper defendant, and whether the suit raises a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right of the State depends?

R
Step 2

Law & Rules Applicable

  1. (i)

    Constitution of India, Article 131 (original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States).

  2. (ii)

    Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 4 (superintendence and administration of the establishment), Section 5 (extension of its powers to other areas) and Section 6 (consent of the State Government).

  3. (iii)

    Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 80 (extension of police powers to another State only with that State's consent) and List II Entry 2 (police); Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXVI (original suits).

  4. (iv)

    State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (the legal rights of States that Article 131 protects).

A
Step 3

Application to Facts & Circumstances

West Bengal withdrew its general consent to CBI investigations in the State in November 2018. The CBI nevertheless registered cases in the State afterwards. The State filed a suit under Article 131 seeking declarations that those registrations were unconstitutional and an injunction against further investigations without its consent. The Union raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit.

The Union contended that the CBI was not under its control, so no relief could lie against it. Examining Section 4 of the Act, the Court held that superintendence of the establishment vests in the Central Vigilance Commission only for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; in all other matters it vests in the Central Government, which also controls its administration. The Union was therefore the proper defendant.

On Article 131, the suit raised a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right of the State depended: whether the Union could investigate through the CBI in the State without its consent, when police is a State subject and both Entry 80 of List I and Section 6 of the Act require the State's consent. The words 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution' bar a suit only where another provision of the Constitution excludes the jurisdiction, as Articles 262 and 279A(11) do; the pendency of related matters under Article 136 is no bar.

The objections that the State had suppressed material facts and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action were also rejected: read as a whole, the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law.

C
Step 4

Conclusion & Ruling

  1. (i)

    The Union's preliminary objections were rejected, and the suit was held maintainable and directed to proceed on its merits.

  2. (ii)

    The CBI, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, is under the superintendence of the Central Government except for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, so the Union answers for it in a suit challenging its investigations in a State.

  3. (iii)

    Whether the Union may investigate in a State that has withdrawn its consent under Section 6 is a question involving the State's legal rights, and is justiciable under Article 131.

Authorities Cited

Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.

  1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592Full text of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India on Indian Kanoon
← All case law briefs