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.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

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proceeding arising therefrom, registered after November 16, 2018 when the consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act was withdrawn by the Plaintiff, other than investigation with respect to an FIR filed/registered on an order of a competent court of law;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 this Court