News Brief
The Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court has said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not need sanction from a state government to file a case under Central laws, such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, against a Central government employee working within the state's jurisdiction.
The SC bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said this while setting aside an April 2023 judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Indian Express reported.
The HC had quashed two FIRs — one against a Superintendent, Central Excise, and another against an Accounts Assistant in the office of Senior Divisional Financial Manager, South Central Railway — on the ground that the Telangana government had not granted sanction to prosecute them.
The alleged offence was committed in districts that remained part of Andhra Pradesh, though the FIRs were filed at Hyderabad in Telangana.
Challenging the FIRs, the duo argued in the Andhra Pradesh High Court that under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), the Andhra Pradesh government's consent was required for investigation since the offences took place within its territory.
The SC, however, noted that even before the bifurcation, the undivided state of AP had given general consent to CBI to probe cases.
The apex Court held that the HC’s view that laws made by AP prior to bifurcation would pertain only to Andhra Pradesh post bifurcation “cannot be the correct law and the legal fiction should be that such laws would be in force in the new State unless altered or repealed or amended by it, in accordance with law”.
The SC judgment said that ‘irrespective of the place of posting,” the accused duo “were Central Government employees and allegedly committed serious offence under PC Act, which is a Central Act” and “therefore the question is in such circumstances merely because such an employee works within the territory of a particular State, to register an FIR by the CBI in connection with commission of an offence under a Central Act whether consent from the state concerned is required or not?”.
The bench said that this was answered by the SC in its decisions in other cases.