Constitutionality of CBI: Supreme Court stays Gauhati High Court judgment

The Supreme Court today stayed the controversial ruling of the Gauhati High Court, which held that the 1963 resolution of the Union government constituting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is unconstitutional and that the CBI can be constituted only through a statute..At an urgent hearing, which was held at the residence of the Chief Justice of India a few minutes back, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai granted the interim relief after the Central Government (Petitioner) had approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Court also issued notice to the Respondents and fixed the next hearing for December 6..The Centre had moved the Supreme Court through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which is the administrative ministry for the CBI, against the November 6 ruling of the Gauhati High Court that the “The resolution number 4/31/61-T dated 1/4/1963 issued by secretary to the Government of India, V. Viswanathan, constituting the CBI is ultra vires. The CBI is neither an organ nor part of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the CBI can’t be treated as a police force constituted under the act..”.The Centre in its SLP settled by Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati has submitted that the impugned judgment, “directly impacted about nine thousand trials currently underway and about one thousand investigations which are being investigated by the CBI.”.Stating that the 50 year old resolution has been issued under Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) empowering the Central Government to constitute a “special police force”, the Centre has contended that merely because the Resolution did not refer to Section 2, it cannot be concluded that the Resolution was not under the DSPE Act. It has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Mani v. Sangeet Theatre [(2004) 12 SCC 278] in support of its above contention..The Centre has further contended that the observations of the High Court that the CBI cannot fall under Entry 8 of List I as the term “investigation” occurring in Entry 8 can only mean an “enquiry” is a misreading of the express provisions of the Constitution. It has submitted that the constitution of the CBI was under the DSPE Act, 1946 and not by way of an executive instruction alone and it was only in the alternative that a submission was made that the formation of the CBI could also be traced to Entry 8 List I..The Centre has also submitted that the Constitutional validity of the DSPE Act was upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Advance Insurance v. Gurudas Mal [(1970) 1 SCC 633]..Submitting that the judgment of the High Court directly impacted the pending trials and investigations of the CBI and was “already being seized upon by various accused persons in various proceedings in the Country to seek a stay of further proceedings against them”, the Petitioner prayed for an interim ex-parte stay to the operation of the impugned judgment..The Supreme Court ordered “In the meantime, there shall be stay of operation of the final judgment and impugned order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 119 of 2008 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6877 of 2005″..It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court had earlier questioned the manner of functioning of the CBI during the hearing of the coal scam saying that it was welded to the political executive thereby affecting its role as an independent investigative agency..Read Order of the Supreme Court.Read the Judgment in Gauhati High Court