The Union government on Thursday accused the West Bengal government of “suppression of facts” and “misleading the court” while seeking dismissal of a constitutional suit filed by the state to bar the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from conducting probes in the latter’s territory in the absence of prior approval of the state.
The Centre underlined that CBI, which is not listed as a defendant by the state in its suit, operates with a degree of independence, thus questioning the causal connection between the Union’s actions and the grievances cited by West Bengal.
Unlock exclusive access to the latest news on India’s general elections, only on the HT App. Download Now! Download Now!
“CBI is not ‘Union of India’ nor is controlled by the latter. The CBI is an independent legal person and has a separate legal identity outside the Union of India,” solicitor general Tushar Mehta told a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
Representing the Centre, Mehta emphasised that actions by CBI cannot be conflated with actions by the Union of India itself and that the state’s suit must be rejected at the threshold on the ground that reliefs have been prayed against the agency, but CBI has not been and cannot be made a party to a suit under Article 131. This provision allows for disputes between the Union and one or more states or between states themselves to be directly adjudicated by the Supreme Court, bypassing subordinate courts.
ALSO READ | Calcutta HC directs Bengal govt to cooperate with CBI in Sandeshkhali probe
“The Union of India has neither registered any case in the state of West Bengal, neither can it register any case, nor has it been investigating any case. Yet, as is evident from the prayers, each and every prayer in the present suit is directed either towards restraining the Union of India from investigating any case or towards quashing cases where the Union of India has allegedly registered FIRs,” Mehta argued before the bench.
The state government has failed to establish how the cause of action against the central government has arisen when the FIRs have been lodged by CBI that enjoys statutory autonomy, especially in its investigative functions, the SG argued, while adding that the mere fact that an agency is established by the Government of India would not entitle any state to file a suit against the Union of India for the actions of that agency.
“A suit under Article 131 can only be filed against a government (either state or central) seeking relief relating to actions of the said government only and not related to the actions of an independent agency. The suit, therefore, filed against the Union of India, in a matter where the CBI is the real party which has done the acts sought to be prevented, is not maintainable and is, therefore, ought to be dismissed without any further inquiry,” said Mehta, reading out from his written submissions. Advocates Kanu Agrawal, Madhav Sinhal and Akshay Nain assisted the SG in the matter.
Moreover, Mehta argued that West Bengal did not approach the court with clean hands — a requirement under the high standards expected of litigants in suits of a constitutional nature, given the state’s failure to disclose ongoing judicial proceedings that directly relate to the orders of other constitutional courts and the pendency of the state’s similar appeal before another bench in the top court.
ALSO READ | Teacher recruitment scam: SC stays CBI probe into Bengal govt officials’ role
“The state has deliberately and willfully suppressed several facts which are most material, in absence of which prayers prayed for can either not be decreed or will run contrary to judicial orders in existence. It failed to disclose that any relief granted in the suit or interim order would run contrary to the judicial orders passed by the constitutional courts with respect to the very same FIRs which are made subject matter of the suit as well as this application,” stressed the SG. Mehta referred to two FIRs registered by CBI on the orders of the Calcutta high court and some others lodged against the central government employees or having pan-India impact.
“It is not understood as to why the state government came in the way of such investigation which would have an inevitable effect of shielding those who are guilty of such multi-state or pan-India offences,” stated SG’s written submissions.
It added that allowing such a suit to proceed would set a dangerous precedent, enabling any government agency to be wrongly implicated in legal actions meant for the central or state governments, thus potentially opening a “pandora’s box” of litigation.
While wrapping up his arguments on Thursday, Mehta pressed for an outright dismissal of the West Bengal’s suit on the grounds of misrepresentation, lack of a direct cause of action against the Union, and abuse of the legal process.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, opened his arguments, albeit briefly, due to paucity of time. Sibal highlighted a fundamental concern about the autonomy of state law enforcement versus central investigative agencies such as CBI.
“Who will direct the CBI not to enter? The Union! The CBI cannot say: ‘I will not accept what the Union says. I am an independent agency.’ This proposition of the law should be rejected at the outset,” said Sibal, adding CBI probes are followed by the Enforcement Directorate’s entry into the state. Sibal will continue his arguments on May 9.
Filed in August 2021, the state’s suit underlined that the Trinamool Congress government had, in November 2018, withdrawn general consent to carry out a probe in the territory of the state, the suit maintained that registration of 12 cases by the central agency despite withdrawal of consent was an instance of “constitutional overreach” by the Union government.
The state said that CBI has no inherent jurisdiction to conduct a probe in any part of the state, including railway areas, till the time it obtains a prior sanction. Claiming that the agency has been exercising its powers in an “unconstitutional manner”, the suit said the registration of cases by CBI was an encroachment on the legal rights of the state. The plea demanded annulment of all 12 cases registered by CBI and to restrain the agency from lodging any fresh cases.
