Bengal trying to paint CBI probes as Centre-state row: Govt in SC

NEW DELHI: Stating that it has no administrative and supervisory control over CBI, which is an independent agency, Centre told Supreme Court that West Bengal’s original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution against it to not allow probe by the agency in the state was not maintainable and is an abuse of legal process.
Arguing on maintainability of West Bengal’s petition, solicitor general Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta that the state was attempting to give Centre-state dispute colour to CBI investigations in cases in the state, many of which have been ordered by Calcutta high court.He said Article 131 could be invoked only in case of inter-govt disputes and the grievance of the state in this case was against CBI and not the Union.
“Suit is inherently not maintainable at all. The Union and DoPT have nothing to do with registration of cases by CBI, probe and prosecution of a case. We do not have administrative and supervisory power over CBI. I cannot supervise and tell the agency on registration of cases or how to investigate or whether to file closure reports or chargesheet. It is a separate statutory entity, supervised by another statutory body CVC,” Mehta submitted, adding that CBI is not an arm of the govt.
Mehta said West Bengal govt had already approached SC challenging HC’s order directing CBI probe in various cases and it should not be allowed to file suit also for redressal of the same grievances, and accused the state for suppressing the fact.
Taking note of SG’s submission, the bench asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal on how the state can file suit after it filed appeal against HC order. Sibal said the appeal was filed in individual cases and not on broader jurisdiction issues. Countering Mehta’s contention, Sibal said CVC has supervisory control over CBI only in corruption cases but it is Centre which controls the agency in the rest of the cases. He submitted that ED always followed CBI if it is allowed to probe in the state and it had huge implications on federal structure. He said that law regulating CBI is unique where consent of state was needed which was not the case in case of ED and NIA.
The hearing remained inconclusive and would resume next week.