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.
It asks 3 things — 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Open with · Police is a State subject while the CBI works under the DSPE Act, 1946; by March 2021 eight States had withdrawn general consent, making consent a federal flashpoint.
Cover
- Statutory basis: Section 5 of the DSPE Act extends CBI powers to a State; Section 6 makes this operative only with State consent, general or case-specific.
- Constitutional echo: Entry 80 of the Union List bars one State's police from acting in another without that State's consent.
- Withdrawal: Mizoram (2015), West Bengal (2018), Chhattisgarh (2019) and five States in 2020 withdrew general consent (DoPT reply, 2021), citing fear of selective targeting.
- Not absolute: West Bengal v. CPDR (2010) lets constitutional courts order CBI probes without consent; withdrawal works only prospectively (DoPT).
- Other limits: withdrawal is only prospective; Union Territories and railway areas lie outside Section 6; the NIA Act, 2008 covers scheduled offences nationwide.
- Federal balance: India is a 'Union of States'; consent protects State police power but cannot shield corruption, nor can the Centre use the CBI selectively.
- Way forward: a dedicated CBI statute, recorded reasons for refusing consent, objective case criteria and dialogue in the Inter-State Council (Article 263).
Close with · Consent guards the States' police power and courts guard the citizen's right to a fair probe; a statutorily independent CBI, discussed through the Inter-State Council, would turn conflict into cooperative federalism.
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”
- By March 2021 eight States had withdrawn general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act: Mizoram (2015), West Bengal (2018), Chhattisgarh (2019), Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kerala, Jharkhand and Punjab (2020).States Barring CBI Investigation - PIB, Ministry of Personnel (24 March 2021) ↗“The following States have withdrawn General Consent under section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act), 1946, previously granted to DSPE (CBI)”
- Withdrawal of consent by a State operates only prospectively, not retrospectively.Jurisdiction of CBI - PIB, Ministry of Personnel ↗“Withdrawal of consent, if any, by a State Government can be effected prospectively and not retrospectively.”
- Article 1 describes India as a Union of States.Constitution of India (as on 2024), Legislative Department, Government of India ↗“Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
- Article 263 lets the President establish an Inter-State Council for coordination between States and the Union.Constitution of India (as on 2024), Legislative Department, Government of India ↗“263. Provisions with respect to an inter-State Council.—If at any time it appears to the President that the public interests would be served by the establishment of a Council charged with the duty of”
- Constitutional courts can entrust cases to the CBI even without the consent of the State Government.Jurisdiction of CBI - PIB, Ministry of Personnel ↗“Constitutional courts can also entrust any case or class of case for investigation in exercise of inherent jurisdiction even without the consent of the respective State Government.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2021, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 360words · Minimalist IAS
Police and public order are State subjects, yet the CBI is a central agency drawing its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. By March 2021 eight States had withdrawn general consent, making it a federal flashpoint.
Why States question the CBI's jurisdiction
- Consent in the statute: Section 5 lets the Centre extend the CBI's powers to a State, but Section 6 makes that extension work only with the State's consent, general or case-specific.
- Constitutional echo: Entry 80 of the Union List bars the police of one State from acting in another without that State's consent.
- Wave of withdrawals: Mizoram (2015), West Bengal (2018), Chhattisgarh (2019) and Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kerala, Jharkhand and Punjab (2020) withdrew general consent (DoPT reply, 2021).
- Political distrust: States fear selective use against their leaders.
Why the power to withhold consent is not absolute
- Court-ordered probes: State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010), a Constitution Bench ruling, lets High Courts and the Supreme Court order CBI probes without consent, sparingly and in exceptional cases.
- Prospective only: withdrawal of consent works only prospectively, and courts can entrust cases to the CBI even without consent (DoPT).
- Gaps in Section 6: consent is not needed in Union Territories and railway areas.
- Parallel central route: the NIA Act, 2008 lets a central agency probe scheduled offences nationwide without consent.
- Centre extends CBI powers (Section 5)
- State gives consent (Section 6)
- CBI registers case
- Courts can order probe without consent
The federal character of India
- A Union of States: Article 1 makes India a 'Union of States'; federalism is basic structure, so consent rightly protects State police power.
- Cooperative, not adversarial: yet consent cannot shield corruption or inter-State crime, nor may the Centre use the CBI selectively.
Way forward
- A CBI statute: a dedicated Act defining the CBI's mandate, autonomy and accountability.
- Transparent consent: reasons recorded for refusals; objective criteria for taking up cases.
- Dialogue: use the Inter-State Council (Article 263) to settle a common protocol.
Consent guards State police power and courts guard the citizen's right to a fair probe; a statutorily independent CBI, trusted by both levels of government, would turn this contest into cooperative federalism.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
