The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the “maintainability” of a civil suit filed by the Mamata Banerjee government challenging the powers of the CBI to probe cases in Bengal even after the state withdrew the general consent to the central agency for investigations in 2018.

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the judgment as it rejected the NDA government’s argument that the agency was not under the control of the Centre.

The bench also rejected the Union government's objections to the suit filed under Article 131 which deals with the resolution by the Supreme Court of a dispute between the Centre and a state or between two states.

The court, however, clarified that it had decided only on the maintainability of the suit and the larger dispute relating to the CBI’s powers to conduct probes in a state without the consent of the government concerned would be adjudicated. The case has been listed for further hearing from August 13.

The Trinamool Congress has welcomed the Supreme Court verdict.

“Various central agencies, including the CBI, were carrying out their activities in Bengal without securing the prior approval of the state government after the general consent accorded to the CBI to conduct probes and raids in the state had been withdrawn in 2018. We are happy that the matter will be heard even after the Centre opposed the suit saying it was not maintainable,” said Chandrima Bhattacharya, the Bengal minister of state for finance.

She said the Bengal government had maintained in the suit that CBI and other central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate were filing FIRs and carrying out their activities in the state without Nabanna's prior approval.

“The Centre had challenged the suit saying it was not maintainable. But the Supreme Court held that the suit is maintainable as it overreaches the Constitution. This is what we had been saying for so long,” said Bhattacharya.

In the Supreme Court, solicitor general Tushar Mehta who represented the Centre vehemently opposed the suit on the ground that the CBI was an independent agency and was not under the control of the Union government. Further, he argued that the cases registered by the CBI in Bengal included those which had been handed over to the agency by Calcutta High Court.

Bengal has contended that under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, the CBI cannot investigate a case if the state concerned withdraws the general consent to the agency. Lawyers Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Bishwajit Bhattacharya argued in the Supreme Court on behalf of the state government.

The Bengal government had on November 16, 2018, withdrawn the general consent to the CBI amidst the political acrimony between the Mamata Banerjee dispensation and the Narendra Modi regime over the alleged misuse of the agency by the latter against political rivals.

The most significant part of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that the CBI is under the control of the Union government as the judges rejected outright the Centre’s plea that the agency was independent and functioned under the general superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

Elaborately interpreting the DSPE Act which governs the CBI, Justice Gavai, who authored the judgement, noted that a perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the DSPE Act clearly shows that it is the central government that is entitled to constitute a special police force to be called the DSPE for investigation of cases in any Union territory of offences notified under Section 3 of the DSPE Act.

The court said perusal of the entire DSPE Act revealed that "right from the constitution of the special police force of CBI, issuance of notifications specifying the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated, superintendence and administration of DSPE and the extension of powers and jurisdiction of DSPE to the areas beyond the Union Territories, it is the Central Government which is vitally concerned with".

“Not only that, only such offences which the Central Government notifies in the official gazette, can be investigated by the DSPE. Under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, except the offences under the PC Act in which the superintendence will be with the CVC, the superintendence of the DSPE in all other matters would vest with the Central Government,” Justice Gavai said while rejecting the Centre’s contention.