Once CBI is allowed to enter a State, ED follows: West Bengal to Supreme Court

If the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is allowed to enter a State for investigation, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) generally follows suit, argued the West Bengal government before the Supreme Court on Thursday while opposing the conduct of CBI probes in the State [State of West Bengal vs Union of India]..All of this has enormous implications for the Indian polity, added Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal while representing the West Bengal government before a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta..The Bench was hearing arguments in an original suit filed by the West Bengal government against the Central government over the alleged misuse of the CBI in matters concerning the State. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal reiterated the State's stance that the CBI cannot probe cases concerning West Bengal without the State government's general consent. "We are dealing with a statute [Delhi Special Police Establishment Act] that impacts the federal structure of this country. [General] Consent is necessary before you get entry in the State," he argued.He went on to add, "Once you give a foothold to the CBI in a State, soon after the ED [Enforcement Directorate] also enters for investigating the predicate offence. It has huge ramifications on the polity of this country.".The suit filed by the West Bengal government highlights that the Trinamool Congress (TMC) led State government has withdrawn general consent for the CBI. Therefore, it has been contended that the CBI can no longer proceed with investigations in West Bengal.This suit is one of two cases filed by the West Bengal government against the Central government after the CBI launched a probe in 2021 into election-related violence in the State..SG Tushar Mehta and Kapil Sibal on the same page? Find out what Supreme Court said.Representing the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated today that the West Bengal government's original suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Mehta stood by the Centre's stance that the CBI is an independent body and not one coming under the Central government. Therefore, the Central government cannot be sued in the matter, Mehta asserted, while also pointing out that the CBI cannot be made the subject of an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution. "CBI is not under Centre and cannot be subject of an original suit. Instrumentality of State can also not be a defendant. Union does not register any (CBI) case," Mehta said. He further accused the West Bengal government of trying to litigate the same issue in two different cases before the Supreme Court. This aspect was concealed from the Court, Mehta argued. "Second limb of my submissions is, how can you suppress important documents before the highest court of the country? This is grounds for dismissal of the suit at the threshold," Mehta, who appeared with Advocate Kanu Agarwal today, contended. .In reply, Sibal relied on Section 4(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) to contend that the CBI comes under the superintendence of the Central government. Therefore, the Central government can be made a defendant to the present suit, he said."It says 'Central government.' That is why we are here. Prime Minister is often leading the DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) and does not answer questions in Parliament. Who says to the agency do not enter (a State)? The Union! It (CBI) is not independent."He added that the CBI cannot be viewed as an independent "statutory" authority merely because it comes under the DSPE Act. "It (CBI) is an arm of the government. Even police is the investigative arm of the State government. They are regulated by statute but are not a statutory authority in itself," Sibal argued. .He further denied the Central government's allegation that the West Bengal government was conducting multiple litigations on the same issue.Sibal countered that while one case involved an original suit (the present case), the other was an appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court order for a CBI probe into post-poll violence. "They cannot say because 136 (Special Leave petition to appeal) is pending, then 131 (original suit) cannot be exercised and it will come back to haunt me. If we had withdrawn, they would say we have given up challenge; if we did not appeal, they would say we are not aggrieved. (Article) 136 power is discretionary, (Article) 131 is Constitutional and mandatory," Sibal said..Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocates Shadan Farasat and Astha Sharma also appeared today for the West Bengal government (plaintiff)..The hearing will continue on May 9.