‘General consent’ for CBI

In News 

Recently ,Meghalaya has withdrawn consent to the CBI to investigate cases in the state, becoming the ninth state in the country to have taken this step. 

What is general consent?

• The CBI is governed by The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, and it must mandatorily obtain the consent of the state government concerned before beginning to investigate a crime in a state.
  • Section 6 of The DSPE Act (“Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction”) says: “Nothing contained in section 5 (titled “Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police establishment to other areas”) shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State

• The CBI’s position is in this respect different from that of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is governed by The NIA Act, 2008, and has jurisdiction across the country.
• The consent of the state government to CBI can be either case-specific or general.
  • General consent is normally given by states to help the CBI in seamless investigation of cases of corruption against central government employees in their states. 
  • This is consent by default, in the absence of which the CBI would have to apply to the state government in every case, and before taking even small actions.

Which states have withdrawn consent, and why?

• Traditionally, almost all states have given CBI general consent. However, since 2015 onward, several states have begun to act differently.
• Before Meghalaya’s action ,eight other states had withdrawn consent to the CBI:
  • Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, and Mizoram. All these states except Mizoram and Meghalaya are ruled by the anti-BJP opposition.
    • The first state to withdraw consent was Mizoram in 2015. 
• At the time of withdrawing consent, all states alleged that the central government was using the CBI to unfairly target the opposition.

Implications of  withdrawal of general consent 

• No registration of fresh cases :
  • It means the CBI will not be able to register any fresh case involving officials of the central government or a private person in the state without the consent of the state government.
• Loss of power
  • CBI officers will lose all powers of a police officer as soon as they enter the state unless the state government has allowed them.

Other issues faced by CBI 

• After the 2018 amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Centre has come to exercise power over the CBI not just administratively, but also legally.
  • In 2018, the government pushed through Parliament amendments to Section 17A of the Act making it mandatory for the CBI to seek the Centre’s permission before registering a case of corruption against any government servant.
    • Earlier, the Centre had mandated that such permission was required only for officials of the level of joint secretary and higher. 
      • The amendments were brought after the Supreme Court struck down the government’s directive.
• The 2018 amendment virtually means the agency can investigate only the officers that the government of the day wants investigated. 
  • In fact, corruption cases registered by the CBI dropped by over 40 per cent between 2017 and 2019.

Options available for CBI 

• The CBI could use the Calcutta HC order to register a fresh case in any state.
  • Alternatively, it could file a case in Delhi and continue to investigate people inside these states.
    • Calcutta High Court ruled in a case of illegal coal mining and cattle smuggling being investigated by the CBI, that the central agency cannot be stopped from probing an employee of the central government in another state.
      • The order has been challenged in the Supreme Court.
    • In Vinay Mishra vs the CBI, Calcutta HC ruled in July 2021 that corruption cases must be treated equally across the country, and a central government employee could not be “distinguished” just because his office was located in a state that had withdrawn general consent.
    • The HC also said that withdrawal of consent would apply in cases where only employees of the state government were involved.
    • The petition had challenged the validity of FIRs registered by the CBI’s Kolkata branch after the withdrawal of consent.
• In an order passed on October 11, 2018, Delhi High Court ruled that the CBI could probe anyone in a state that has withdrawn general consent, if the case was not registered in that state. 
  • The order came on a case of corruption in Chhattisgarh — the court said that since the case was registered in Delhi, the CBI did not require prior consent of the Chhattisgarh government.
  • In sum, avenues remain unavailable to the CBI to proceed even without consent.

• There is ambiguity on whether the CBI can carry out a search in connection with an old case without the consent of the state government. 
  • But the agency has the option to get a warrant from a local court in the state and conduct the search.
  • In case the search requires an element of surprise, Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be used, which allows a police officer of one jurisdiction to ask an officer of another to carry out a search on their behalf. 
  • And should the first officer feel that a search carried out by the latter may lead to loss of evidence, the section allows the first officer to conduct the search himself after giving notice to the latter.
    • Finally, consent does not apply in cases where someone has been caught red-handed taking a bribe.

Way Ahead

• The role, jurisdiction and legal powers of the CBI need to be clearly laid down.
• It will give it goal clarity, role clarity, autonomy in all spheres.

Source:IE