NEW DELHI: Countering Centre’s stand that it wields no power over CBI which is an independent agency, West Bengal govt on Wednesday told Supreme Court that Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , under which the agency was formed specifically says that its superintendence shall vest in the central govt in all cases except those related to corruption and contended CBI probe can’t be ordered in the state without its consent.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta that Sections 4 and 5 of the Act confer the power pertaining to superintendence and jurisdiction of the agency to the Centre. Putting forward the stand of the state govt that the central agency could not conduct a probe within its jurisdiction without its consent, Sibal said that it would destroy the federal structure if Centre forced its way into the state and conducted a probe.
“Centre has no jurisdiction to allow its investigating agency to come in my state against my consent. Such an act is unconstitutional. It would be an encroachment on the rights and jurisdiction of the state and its police. It would be constitutional overreach and exceeding of jurisdiction and would destroy the federal structure of the country,” Sibal said. The lawyer referred to various sections of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to make a point that Centre controls CBI but clarified that role of Centre is only upto the registration of case but not investigation and probe was not influenced by it. Reading Section 4 of the Act, he said the superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far as it relates to investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act shall vest in Central Vigilance Commission but the superintendence in all other matters shall vest in the central govt. He said section 5 empowers Centre to extend the powers and jurisdiction of CBI to any area .
SG Tushar Mehta reiterated that original suit filed by the state under Article 131 of Constitution against it to not allow CBI probe was not maintainable and is an abuse of legal process. He said that article 131 could be invoked only in case of inter-governments dispute and the grievance of the state in this case was against the CBI and not the Union. The court reserved its order on maintainability of suit and said that it would deliver the verdict after summer vacation.
The Centre had submitted that the suit was inherently not maintainable at all. “The Union and the DoPT have nothing to do with registration of cases by CBI, probe and prosecution of a case. We do not have administrative and supervisory power over. I cannot supervise and tell the agency on registration of cases or how to investigate or whether to file closure reports or chargesheet. It is a separate statutory entity, supervised by another statutory body CVC,” Mehta had submitted, adding that CBI is not a limb of the govt.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta that Sections 4 and 5 of the Act confer the power pertaining to superintendence and jurisdiction of the agency to the Centre. Putting forward the stand of the state govt that the central agency could not conduct a probe within its jurisdiction without its consent, Sibal said that it would destroy the federal structure if Centre forced its way into the state and conducted a probe.
“Centre has no jurisdiction to allow its investigating agency to come in my state against my consent. Such an act is unconstitutional. It would be an encroachment on the rights and jurisdiction of the state and its police. It would be constitutional overreach and exceeding of jurisdiction and would destroy the federal structure of the country,” Sibal said. The lawyer referred to various sections of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to make a point that Centre controls CBI but clarified that role of Centre is only upto the registration of case but not investigation and probe was not influenced by it. Reading Section 4 of the Act, he said the superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far as it relates to investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act shall vest in Central Vigilance Commission but the superintendence in all other matters shall vest in the central govt. He said section 5 empowers Centre to extend the powers and jurisdiction of CBI to any area .
SG Tushar Mehta reiterated that original suit filed by the state under Article 131 of Constitution against it to not allow CBI probe was not maintainable and is an abuse of legal process. He said that article 131 could be invoked only in case of inter-governments dispute and the grievance of the state in this case was against the CBI and not the Union. The court reserved its order on maintainability of suit and said that it would deliver the verdict after summer vacation.
The Centre had submitted that the suit was inherently not maintainable at all. “The Union and the DoPT have nothing to do with registration of cases by CBI, probe and prosecution of a case. We do not have administrative and supervisory power over. I cannot supervise and tell the agency on registration of cases or how to investigate or whether to file closure reports or chargesheet. It is a separate statutory entity, supervised by another statutory body CVC,” Mehta had submitted, adding that CBI is not a limb of the govt.
You may also like
Shocking Video: Did Delhi Girl 'Hit Herself' With Stone, Stage Drama Over Being Beaten Up For Feeding Stray Dogs And Mislead Animal Lovers?
TS CPGET 2024: Registration Process Started, Exam Dates Tentatively Set for July 5
Election Commission's Crackdown Leads to Record Seizures Worth 8889 Crores
Massive free Android upgrade is available on these phones - check your device now
