9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 1118 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation ( the CBI ), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( the Special Police Act ), to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State Government? Held that - Direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence within a State without the State Government's consent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of High Court to Direct CBI Investigations The core issue addressed by the Constitution Bench is whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate a cognizable offence within a State without the consent of the State Government. Background and Facts: A writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court alleging partiality and inefficiency in the investigation of a violent incident by the West Bengal police, attributed to political influences. The High Court directed the CBI to take over the investigation. The State of West Bengal challenged this order, arguing that such a direction violated the federal structure and the doctrine of separation of powers. Arguments: 1. State of West Bengal: - Argued that the Constitution and statutory provisions restrict the Parliament from enacting laws that permit police from one State to investigate offences in another State without consent. - Cited the separation of powers, emphasizing that the judiciary should not encroach upon the executive's domain. - Asserted that the High Court's direction undermines the federal structure and the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Legislature over police matters. 2. Union of India: - Contended that the restriction on Parliament and the Central Government does not extend to Constitutional Courts. - Emphasized the duty of courts to protect citizens' fundamental rights, which may necessitate directing CBI investigations in certain cases. - Highlighted that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, essential for upholding constitutional values and enforcing limitations. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions: - Article 246: Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and States. - Entry 80 of List I (Union List) and Entry 2 of List II (State List): Define the legislative competence concerning police powers. - Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Extend CBI's jurisdiction to States with the State Government's consent. Court's Analysis: 1. Federal Structure and Separation of Powers: - The Constitution is supreme, and all organs of the State derive their authority from it. - The judiciary's role includes interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding fundamental rights. - The doctrine of separation of powers does not preclude judicial review or the judiciary's duty to enforce fundamental rights. 2. Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights: - Judicial review is integral to the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be ousted by statutory provisions. - The High Court's power under Article 226 is broad, allowing it to issue directions to enforce fundamental rights and for any other purpose. - The judiciary must act to protect citizens' rights, even if it involves directing investigations by agencies like the CBI. 3. Consent of State Government: - While Sections 5 and 6 of the Special Police Act require State consent for CBI investigations, this restriction does not apply to Constitutional Courts exercising judicial review. - Courts can direct CBI investigations in exceptional cases to ensure fair and impartial investigations, upholding the rule of law and constitutional mandates. Conclusion: - The High Court's direction to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence within a State without the State Government's consent does not violate the federal structure or the doctrine of separation of powers. - Such directions are valid in law, provided they are issued sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice. - The power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is essential for maintaining the Constitution's objectives and cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions. Final Remarks: - The Supreme Court emphasized the need for caution in exercising the power to direct CBI investigations, ensuring it is not done routinely but only in cases requiring credibility and confidence in the investigation. - The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental rights and the rule of law, even if it involves directing investigations by central agencies like the CBI.
|
