Central Agency Powers Prevail: A Study of CBI Jurisdiction Post-State Bifurcation


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar

Citation: 2025 INSC 11. [PDF]

Introduction

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the complex issue of the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) jurisdiction in the context of state bifurcation. The case specifically examines whether the CBI requires explicit consent from a state government to investigate central government employees for offenses under a central act, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), when those offenses occur within that state but the investigating agency is based in a different state post-bifurcation.

The ruling clarifies that existing laws and notifications remain valid in newly formed states after bifurcation until they are altered or repealed. This ensures continuity and avoids legal gaps. The court also affirms the CBI's authority to investigate central government employees under central laws without state consent, irrespective of where the offense occurred within the country.

This case is significant for its interpretation of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act) and the PC Act. It sets a precedent for CBI jurisdiction in cases involving central government employees and central laws, especially after state reorganization. This ruling reinforces the principle that the CBI has the power to investigate cases related to central government employees and offenses under central laws across state jurisdictions, without needing state consent.

Case Summary

  1. Two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered by the CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, against two individuals: A. Satish Kumar, a Superintendent in Central Excise, and Challa Sreenivasulu, an Accounts Assistant.
  2. A. Satish Kumar was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹10,000 for issuing an excise license surrender certificate in Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
  3. Challa Sreenivasulu was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹15,000 for processing contract bills in Guntakal, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh.
  4. Both FIRs were registered in Hyderabad, Telangana, and charge sheets were filed in the Court of Principal, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The Court took cognizance and assigned CC numbers.
  5. The state of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated in 2014 into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was the common High Court for both states until December 2018.
  6. The cases were transferred from Hyderabad to Vishakhapatnam, and then to Kurnool due to policy orders redefining territorial jurisdiction of the CBI.
  7. The accused filed Writ Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenging the trial in Kurnool based on jurisdiction and lack of consent for the CBI to investigate.
  8. The High Court ruled in favor of the accused, quashing the FIRs and charge sheets, stating that the CBI needed specific permission from the Andhra Pradesh government after the bifurcation to investigate offenses in Andhra Pradesh. The High Court also stated there was no notification for a Special Court under the PC Act.
  9. The CBI appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the existing general consent for CBI investigation, given by the undivided Andhra Pradesh government, remained valid in both new states, and also that as the accused were Central Government employees, no state consent was needed.

Study guide

  1. Understand the factual background: Review the timeline of events leading to the case, including the dates of the offenses, FIR registrations, state bifurcation, and court transfers. Pay close attention to the locations where the offenses occurred and where the investigations were initiated.
  2. Examine the legal issues: Focus on the central legal questions raised before the High Court and the Supreme Court. Understand the arguments related to the necessity of state consent for CBI investigations after state bifurcation, and jurisdiction of the CBI court.
  3. Analyze the High Court's decision: Identify the reasons why the High Court ruled against the CBI. Consider its interpretation of the DSPE Act and the requirement of consent under Section 6.
  4. Study the CBI's arguments: Understand the basis of the CBI's appeal to the Supreme Court, including the legal arguments regarding the continuation of laws and the concept of general consent. Understand their arguments for why state consent was not needed.
  5. Review the Supreme Court's analysis: Examine the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014, especially concerning the circular memo dated 26.05.2014. Understand how the court interpreted the definition of “law” and the concept of “general consent” under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
  6. Understand relevant legal provisions: Learn about Section 6 of the DSPE Act, which deals with the necessity of State consent for CBI investigations. Also, study Section 4 of the PC Act, which deals with the appointment of Special Judges. Know the relevant sections of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014.
  7. Study the Supreme Court's Judgement: Understand the Supreme Court’s reliance on the prior judgements in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. cases, which established that the CBI does not require state consent to investigate Central Government employees under Central Acts like the PC Act.
  8. Analyze the Supreme Court’s conclusions: Understand how the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and the reasons behind it. Pay attention to the effect of the circular memo issued under Section 3 of the AP Reorganisation Act in determining the continuity of laws post-bifurcation.
  9. Assess the impact: Understand the implications of the judgment on the balance of power between the central and state governments in criminal investigation matters.

Rationale

  1. The Supreme Court emphasized that the circular memo dated 26.05.2014 clarified the laws applicable to the new states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The definition of "law" included notifications, orders, etc., which were in force on the appointed day i.e. 02.06.2014.
  2. The Court stated that the general consent order under Section 6 of the DSPE Act issued by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh government in 1990, continued after the bifurcation of states. This meant that the CBI had the authority to investigate cases in Andhra Pradesh without seeking fresh consent.
  3. The Supreme Court held that the Special CBI Court at Hyderabad was validly designated by notifications before 02.06.2014 and its status continued post-bifurcation. This addressed the High Court’s contention that the CBI Court in Hyderabad lacked jurisdiction after the bifurcation of the state.
  4. The Court cited prior judgments, including Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.’s case, to establish that the CBI does not need state consent to register and investigate offenses committed by Central Government employees under a Central Act (like the PC Act). The court reasoned that these employees are under the purview of the central government, and the CBI’s authority is not restricted by state boundaries in such cases.
  5. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the circular memo, the existing general consent for CBI investigations, and the fact that the accused were central government employees.
  6. The Court overturned the High Court's judgment and restored the cases to the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases in Kurnool for trial.

FAQ

Q.1. What was the core issue in this Supreme Court judgment?

Answer: The core issue was whether the CBI needed explicit consent from the Andhra Pradesh government to investigate central government employees for corruption offenses under the PC Act, after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, when the offenses took place in Andhra Pradesh but the CBI was based in Telangana.

Q.2. What is the DSPE Act, and why was it important in this case?

Answer: The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, governs the functioning and powers of the CBI. Section 6 states that the CBI needs the consent of the State Government to exercise its powers in that State. This was a point of contention as the CBI registered cases in Telangana for offenses in Andhra Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh argued it had not given consent.

Q.3. Why did the Andhra Pradesh High Court rule against the CBI?

Answer: The High Court ruled against the CBI because it believed that after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the CBI needed fresh consent from the Andhra Pradesh government to investigate offenses in that state. Also, the High Court said the CBI court in Hyderabad did not have proper jurisdiction to try cases arising from the new state of Andhra Pradesh, and there was no notification for a Special Court under PC Act.

Q.4. What was the key argument made by the Supreme Court in favor of the CBI?

Answer: The Supreme Court argued that all existing laws and notifications, including general consent for CBI investigation, continued to apply in both the new states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana after bifurcation. It further stated that because the accused were central government employees under a central law, no state consent was required for the CBI to act.

Q.5. How did the Supreme Court view the circular memo No.13665/SR/2014?

Answer: The Supreme Court considered this circular memo crucial. The circular clarified that all existing laws of the undivided Andhra Pradesh as of 01.06.2014, would continue to apply to both the newly formed states from 02.06.2014. The Court defined "law" to include all orders and notifications and held that this memo continued the validity of the general consent given to the CBI, and of the designation of the special court in Hyderabad.

Q.6. Did the Supreme Court say the CBI needed consent from the state to investigate these cases?

Answer: The Supreme Court clarified that when the CBI is investigating Central Government employees for offenses under a Central Act, like the PC Act, the CBI does not require consent from the State government, irrespective of where the employee is working.

Q.7. What does the Supreme Court's judgment mean for the accused in these cases?

Answer: The Supreme Court's ruling means that the cases against the accused are restored. They will now face trial in the designated Special CBI Court in Kurnool.

Q.8. What is the broader implication of this judgment?

Answer: This judgment reinforces the principle of continuity of laws after state bifurcation. It clarifies the CBI’s jurisdiction in cases of corruption involving Central Government employees, affirming the agency’s power to investigate under a central act without state consent when investigating central government employees. This also highlights that the central laws and CBI authority are not subject to restriction by state boundaries or the particulars of state reorganization laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar clarifies the extent of CBI's jurisdiction post the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. The ruling underscores that existing laws and notifications remain valid in newly formed states and that the CBI has the power to investigate central government employees under central laws without state consent. This decision reinforces the CBI’s role in investigating corruption and upholds the principle that state boundaries do not restrict its authority in matters relating to central government employees and central laws.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more