The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not require prior state government consent to register an FIR against central government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ruling, delivered by Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal, has far-reaching implications for anti-corruption investigations across India.
This decision came while overturning a 2023 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that had quashed FIRs registered by the CBI against two public servants, citing jurisdictional issues and lack of state consent.
Case Background
The controversy revolved around two cases filed under Section 7 of the PC Act. The accused included:
1. Satish Kumar, a Superintendent in Central Excise, Nandyal, who allegedly demanded ₹10,000 from a contractor for issuing a license surrender certificate.
2. Challa Sreenivasulu, an Accounts Assistant in the South Central Railway, Guntakal, accused of accepting ₹15,000 as bribes for processing pending contract bills.
Both incidents occurred in Andhra Pradesh after the state’s bifurcation in 2014. The CBI’s Hyderabad branch in Telangana registered and investigated the cases. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, however, quashed the FIRs, stating that the CBI lacked the necessary consent from the Andhra Pradesh government to investigate and prosecute these cases.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing the following legal questions:
1. State Consent Under the DSPE Act: Is state government consent mandatory for the CBI to register an FIR against central government employees within the state’s territory?
2. Jurisdiction of CBI Special Courts: Does the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh invalidate pre-existing jurisdictional arrangements for CBI cases?
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice C.T. Ravikumar, delivering the judgment, clarified critical aspects of the law:
1. No Consent Needed for Central Employees:
– The Court emphasized that under Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, prior state consent is not required when investigating offenses involving central government employees.
– Referring to earlier rulings, the judgment stated:
“Consent of the state under Section 6 cannot come in the way of the CBI’s jurisdiction to investigate offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act involving central government employees.”
2. Continuity of Laws Post-Bifurcation:
– The Court held that general consent granted by the undivided Andhra Pradesh in 1990 under the DSPE Act remained valid post-bifurcation unless expressly revoked.
– Court ruled:
“The bifurcation of a state does not create a legal vacuum or strip the CBI of its statutory powers.”
3. Jurisdiction of Special CBI Courts:
– Notifications issued before bifurcation, granting Hyderabad’s CBI Court jurisdiction over Rayalaseema districts, including Kurnool and Anantapur, remained in force until specifically amended.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals by the CBI, reinstating the FIRs and ongoing proceedings. The judgment overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling that had quashed the FIRs on the grounds of lack of state consent and improper jurisdiction.
The cases will now proceed in the Special CBI Court in Kurnool, where they were transferred following administrative changes after bifurcation.
