The Supreme Court has ruled that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not require consent from state governments to prosecute central government officials posted in various states. This significant judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravi Kumar and Rajesh Bindal while overturning a Telangana High Court decision that had quashed corruption cases against two central government employees posted in the erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh.
The CBI had filed FIRs against A. Satish Kumar, a superintendent of central excise in Nandyal, Kurnool district, and Challa Sreenivasulu, an accounts assistant in the Indian Railways’ Guntakal division. Kumar was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹10,000 from contractor Arif in exchange for issuing a license surrender certificate. Similarly, Sreenivasulu allegedly accepted ₹15,000 from C. Dorrai Rajulu Naidu to process contract bills.
The CBI had charged both officials under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and submitted chargesheets to the competent court in Hyderabad. However, the Telangana High Court quashed the cases, citing the absence of a general consent order under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which governs the CBI. The High Court held that the CBI could not proceed without the Telangana government’s consent.
Aggrieved by this decision, the CBI approached the Supreme Court. In its ruling, the apex court clarified that the FIRs were filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a central law, and pertained to central government employees or employees of central undertakings. Justice Ravi Kumar noted that the employees’ place of posting, within a state’s jurisdiction, did not change their status as central government officials accused of violating a central law.
The Court further observed that the central question was whether the CBI required state government consent to investigate and prosecute a central government employee under a central law, merely because the alleged offence occurred within the state’s territory. The bench unequivocally held that no such consent was needed.
Justice Ravi Kumar explained that the consent requirement under Section 6 of the DSPE Act was not intended to hinder investigations into central offenses simply because they occurred within state boundaries. He emphasized that applying such a restrictive interpretation would undermine the effective enforcement of central laws against central government employees.
The Supreme Court criticized the Telangana High Court’s decision to quash the FIRs and proceedings, stating that such judgments could not be sustained. “In such circumstances, considering the questions from different perspectives, we are of the firm view that the impugned judgment…cannot be sustained,” Justice Ravi Kumar stated.
By allowing the CBI’s appeal, the Supreme Court underscored that investigating and prosecuting central government officials for offenses under central laws does not require the consent of state governments. This landmark decision strengthens the CBI’s ability to address corruption and other central offenses involving central government employees, irrespective of their posting within state territories.