THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

Case Analysis

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

November 27, 2024

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case involves a constitutional dispute under Article 131 of the Constitution of India between the State of West Bengal and the Union of India. The State challenged the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) jurisdiction to register and investigate cases after the State’s withdrawal of general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act). The State sought reliefs declaring such actions as unconstitutional and violative of federal principles, while the Union contested the maintainability of the suit and asserted that the jurisdiction of CBI, as an organ under the control of the Central Government, superseded the withdrawal of consent. The Court’s judgment elaborated on the federal structure, the limits of executive consent under the DSPE Act, and the scope of Article 131.

Keywords: Article 131, Federalism, CBI Jurisdiction, DSPE Act Section 6, Constitutional Rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of West Bengal v. Union of India

ii) Case Number: Original Suit No. 4 of 2021

iii) Judgement Date: 10 July 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

vi) Author: Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 676 : 2024 INSC 502

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 131 of the Constitution of India
Section 6, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
Order XXVI, Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Article 136, Constitution of India

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None specified.

x) Case is Related to: Constitutional Law, Federalism, and Criminal Law Procedure.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose following the State of West Bengal’s withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, which previously enabled the CBI to investigate crimes within the State. Despite the withdrawal, the CBI continued registering cases, prompting the State to file a suit under Article 131, asserting that such actions were unconstitutional and undermined the federal framework. The Union of India raised preliminary objections, arguing that the matter did not fall within the ambit of Article 131 due to pending related cases under Articles 136, 32, and 226, and questioned the plaintiff’s claims about jurisdictional interference.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The State of West Bengal withdrew general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act on 16 November 2018.
Post withdrawal, the CBI continued to register FIRs and conduct investigations in the State.
The State filed this suit seeking a declaration that CBI’s actions were unconstitutional, restraining the CBI from investigating within its territory without specific consent or court orders.
The Union argued that the CBI’s powers stemmed from central authority, and the withdrawal of consent by the State did not impede investigations where court directions or central notifications were in place.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Jurisdiction of CBI: Whether the CBI can exercise jurisdiction within a State after withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
Article 131 Scope: Whether disputes of this nature fall within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131.
Maintainability: Whether the suit is maintainable considering related proceedings under Articles 136, 226, or 32.
Federal Principles: Whether the CBI’s actions post-withdrawal violated the principles of federalism.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The State of West Bengal argued that once consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is withdrawn, the CBI loses jurisdiction to investigate crimes within the State unless specifically authorized by the State or directed by a court.

ii) The petitioner contended that continued investigation by the CBI undermined the federal structure and violated the State’s autonomy as protected under the Constitution.

iii) They asserted that Article 131 grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for resolving disputes between States and the Union, making the suit maintainable.

iv) Reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) and other precedents affirming the significance of federal principles in disputes between the Centre and States.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The Union contended that the suit was not maintainable under Article 131 as related matters were already under judicial consideration in other forums, such as Articles 136 and 226.

ii) They argued that the CBI, being a central agency, derives its powers directly from the Central Government, and its actions were consistent with the law.

iii) The Union stated that the consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is procedural and does not impact ongoing investigations or cases initiated based on prior consent or court orders.

iv) They emphasized the CBI’s independence and the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, limiting central interference in its functioning.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court held that:

Article 131 provides original jurisdiction for disputes involving constitutional questions between the Union and a State, irrespective of parallel proceedings elsewhere.
Withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act does not retrospectively nullify investigations initiated before the withdrawal.
However, post-withdrawal, the CBI requires explicit consent or judicial directives to register new cases.
Federalism demands mutual respect for the powers and autonomy of the Union and State governments.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court underscored the importance of federal cooperation and the need for clear delineation of powers between the Centre and States to prevent jurisdictional conflicts.

c. GUIDELINES

Investigations by the CBI post-consent withdrawal must adhere to the principles of federalism and jurisdictional clarity.
The Centre and States must evolve protocols to handle investigations in such circumstances, ensuring respect for autonomy and rule of law.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case reinforces the balance of power in a federal structure and highlights the significance of consent in intergovernmental investigations. It also elucidates the scope of Article 131, demonstrating its utility in resolving disputes involving constitutional interpretations.

Case Analysis