The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular State is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India.
Approach · directive: “explain”
What it asks · Explain the legal basis of the CBI's dependence on State consent, why States withhold it, and why the power is not absolute, balancing federalism with effective investigation.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Explain the legal basis of the CBI's dependence on State consent and why States question its jurisdiction
- Explain why the States' power to withhold consent is not absolute
- Relate both to India's federal character and suggest how the balance can be kept
Open with · Police is a State subject while the CBI is a central agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946; consent is where State autonomy meets national investigation.
Cover
- Statutory basis: Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act let the CBI operate in a State only with that State's consent, general or case-specific.
- Constitutional scheme: police is a State subject, and Entry 80 of the Union List conditions cross-border police jurisdiction on the consent of the State concerned.
- Why States withhold: fear of political misuse and selective targeting; several States, beginning with West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh in 2018, withdrew general consent.
- Court-directed probes: West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) held that constitutional courts may order CBI investigations without State consent, sparingly.
- Other limits: Section 6 does not cover Union Territories and railway areas, and refusal of consent cannot become a shield for corruption or serious crime.
- Federal balance: federalism is part of the basic structure, yet the NIA Act, 2008 lets a central agency probe scheduled offences nationwide without State consent.
- Way forward: a dedicated statute securing the CBI's autonomy, objective criteria for taking up cases, transparent consent practice and consultation through the Inter-State Council.
Close with · State consent protects federalism, yet courts can order CBI probes in exceptional cases; the lasting fix is a more independent, statutorily governed CBI that States can trust.
Add value (verified)
- Entry 80 of the Union List allows police jurisdiction to extend beyond a State only with the consent of the State concerned, the same consent principle found in Section 6 of the DSPE Act, which governs the CBI. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 80 - Legislative Department ↗“but not so as to enable the police of one State to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area outside that State without the consent of the Government of the State in which such area is situated”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2021, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 326 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Police and public order are State subjects, while the CBI is a central agency created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946; State consent is where State autonomy meets national investigation.
Why States question CBI jurisdiction
- Statutory basis: Section 5 lets the Centre extend the CBI's powers to a State, but Section 6 makes that extension operative only with the State's consent, general or case-specific.
- Constitutional scheme: Entry 80 of the Union List bars the police of one State from acting in another without the consent of that State's Government, the same principle that governs the CBI.
- Political distrust: fearing selective targeting, several States withdrew general consent, beginning with West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh in 2018, so the CBI must now seek case-by-case consent there.
Why withholding consent is not absolute
- Court-directed probes: in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) a Constitution Bench held that High Courts and the Supreme Court may order a CBI investigation without State consent, sparingly and in exceptional cases.
- Limits of Section 6: consent is not needed in Union Territories and railway areas, and withdrawal cannot become a shield for corruption or serious crime that crosses State lines.
- National agency route: the NIA Act, 2008 lets a central agency investigate scheduled offences across the country without State consent, showing that federalism accommodates central investigation of grave crimes.
Federal balance
- Federalism is part of the basic structure, so consent protects the States' police power; equally, cooperative federalism expects States not to obstruct probes into inter-State crime, and the Centre not to use the CBI selectively.
Way forward
- A dedicated CBI statute securing its autonomy, objective criteria for taking up cases, reasons recorded for granting or refusing consent, and dialogue through the Inter-State Council.
State consent guards the federal character of policing, yet constitutional courts can order CBI probes when justice demands; the durable answer is a CBI independent enough for States to trust it.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.