1. Suit by a State against the Union challenging the constitutionality of registering cases by a central investigating agency after withdrawal of consent under Section 6, DSPE Act. (Para 1 , 19 , 47 , 48 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 566
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
The State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Suit No. 4 of 2021
Decided on : 10-07-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Plaintiff(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanjay Basu, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Mr. Adit Pujari, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Arshya Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Ms. Soumya Saxena, Adv. Mr. Archit Adlakha, Adv. Mr. Aditya Raj Pandey, Adv.
For the Defendant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Karthikay Agrawal, Adv. Mrs. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For the Plaintiff(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanjay Basu, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Mr. Adit Pujari, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Arshya Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Ms. Soumya Saxena, Adv. Mr. Archit Adlakha, Adv. Mr. Aditya Raj Pandey, Adv.
For the Defendant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Karthikay Agrawal, Adv. Mrs. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
The court affirmed that the CBI cannot operate in a State without prior consent post-withdrawal, emphasizing the constitutional principle of federalism and the legal rights of States under Article 131.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 131 - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6 - Suit filed by State of West Bengal against Union of India challenging the constitutionality of CBI's actions post-withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act - The court addressed the maintainability of the suit, emphasizing that disputes involving legal rights between the Union and States fall under Article 131. The court found that the CBI's actions without State consent violated constitutional provisions and the principle of federalism. (Paras 1, 84)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court clarified that Article 131 provides exclusive original jurisdiction for disputes between the Union and States, and the pendency of related matters under Articles 32 or 136 does not bar such suits. (Paras 68, 76)
(C) Legal Rights - The court reiterated that the legal rights of States include their immunity from the Union's overreach, particularly regarding police powers. (Paras 84, 86)
Facts of the case:
The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, asserting that the CBI registered cases without consent after the withdrawal of such consent on November 16, 2018, violating the DSPE Act and the Constitution. (Paras 1, 84)
Findings of Court:
The court rejected the Union's preliminary objections regarding maintainability, affirming that the suit raises significant constitutional questions about federalism and jurisdiction. (Paras 84, 86)
Issues: The main issues included whether the suit was maintainable under Article 131 and whether the CBI could act without State consent post-withdrawal. (Paras 1, 84)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CBI's actions without State consent were unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of federalism and the legal rights of States. (Paras 84, 86)
Result: Preliminary objections by the Union of India rejected; the suit shall proceed on its merits. (Paras 84, 86)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Union claims suit is barred by pending proceedings and lack of cause of action; State contends the agency is a Union organ and consent is mandatory. (Para 4 , 7 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
3. The central agency is an organ of the Union under the DSPE Act; Article 131 provides a special remedy for federal disputes involving legal rights or immunities. (Para 63 , 65 , 66 , 75 , 77 , 83 )
4. A suit under Article 131 is maintainable if it involves a dispute between the Union and a State regarding a legal right or immunity. (Para 36 , 37 , 83 )
5. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability are rejected, and the suit is ordered to proceed for framing of issues. (Para 84 , 85 )
6. Is the CBI an organ of the Union of India for the purposes of Article 131?
Yes. Under the DSPE Act, the Central Government constitutes the force, notifies the offences to be investigated, and holds general superintendence and administration, making the CBI an organ or body established by and under the superintendence of the Government of India. (Para 53 , 55 , 57 , 63 , 65 , 66 )
7. Does the phrase subject to the provisions of this Constitution in Article 131 bar suits if similar issues are pending under Article 136 or 226?
No. This phrase refers to specific constitutional exclusions, such as Article 262 regarding inter-state water disputes. General remedies available to any party under Articles 32, 136, or 226 do not preclude the special remedy available to the specified parties under Article 131. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 )
8. What constitutes a legal right for the purpose of maintainability under Article 131?
A legal right includes the right of immunity, defined as freedom from the power of the Union Government. Disputes concerning the delineation of powers between the Union and States, where a State asserts its immunity from the Union's power, are maintainable. (Para 36 , 37 , 83 )
9. Can a suit under Article 131 be rejected for non-joinder of a central agency if the Union of India is a party?
No, provided the agency is an organ of the Union. Because the Union exercises the power to constitute, notify, and superintend the agency via the DSPE Act, the Union is the appropriate defendant for challenges to the agency's jurisdiction. (Para 63 , 65 , 66 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Gavai, J.
| INDEX | |
| Sl. No. | Particulars |
| I. | INTRODUCTION |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS OF PLAINTIFF |
| IV. | LEGAL FRAMEWORK |
| a. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 | |
| b. Article 131 of the Constitution | |
| V. | JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS |
| a. State of Bihar v. Union of India | |
| b. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India | |
| VI. | CONSIDERATION |
| a. Reading of the Plaint | |
| b. Scheme of the DSPE ACT | |
| c. Power of superintendence of the Central Government | |
| d. Interpretation of the term "subject to the provisions of this Constitution" | |
| e. Suppression of material fact | |
| f. Cause of action of the suit | |
| VII. | CONCLUSION |
I. INTRODUCTION:
1. The present suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking the following reliefs:
i. "Pass a Judgment and Decree declaring that registration of cases by the Defendant after withdrawal of Notification under Section 6 of the DSPE ACT by the Plaintiff is unconstitutional and non-est;
ii. Pass Judgment and Decree thereby restraining and forbearing the Defendant from registering any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences committed within the territory of State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent under Section 6 of the DSPE ACT by the State;
iii. Pass a Judgment and Decree declaring that the action of the Defendant in registering cases by the Defendant after withdrawal of Notification under Section 6 of the DSPE ACT by the Plaintiff is violative of Constitution of India as well as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution and the principle of federalism;
iv. Pass a Judgment and Decree thereby quashing all cases registered by the Defendant after withdrawal of Notification under Section 6 of the DSPE ACT by the Plaintiff and transmit those records to the Plaintiff for registration of regular cases by the police force of the Plaintiff;
v. Ad-interim order restraining the Defendant from proceeding with any investigation on an FIR and any proceeding arising therefrom, registered after November 16, 2018 when the consent under Section 6 of the DSPE ACT was withdrawn by the Plaintiff, other than investigation with respect to an FIR filed/registered on an order of a competent court of law;
vi. Pass a Judgment and Decree granting such other and further reliefs that are deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. On filing of the suit, preliminary objections have been raised by the defendant - Union of India with regard to the maintainability of the present suit. Through this judgment, we have dealt with the contentions of the parties on the aspect of maintainability.
3. For the consideration of the present issue of maintainability, we have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the defendant-Union of India and Shri Kapil Sibal, Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shri Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-State of West Bengal.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT:
4. The basic objection with regard to tenability of the suit is based on Article 131 of the Constitution of India (for short, "the Constitution"). The learned Solicitor General submitted that, upon interpretation of Article 131 of the Constitution, it is clear that the provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution are subject to the other provisions of the Constitution. He therefore submitted that, since the issue involved in the present lis is also an issue arising in certain appeals pending before this Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution, a fresh suit under Article 131 of the Constitution would not be tenable. It is submitted that the term "subject to the provisions of this Constitution" has to be interpreted as "subject to the other provisions of the Constitution including Article 136". It is therefore submitted that, since the issue with regards to the same subject matter is pending before
