Supreme Court Upholds CBI Jurisdiction and State Consent Post-Bifurcation of State

Introduction

On January 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment (Division Bench) in The State, Central Bureau of Investigation V. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. 2025 INSC 11 by addressing crucial questions of jurisdiction, procedural compliance, and the application of anti-corruption laws post State bifurcation. This case involved two criminal appeals, both arising from allegations of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The judgment holds significance for its in-depth examination of legal principles governing jurisdiction and the operational limits of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act).

Background of the Case

The case revolved around two separate FIRs registered by the CBI:

1. FIR No. 10(A)/2017: Registered against a Superintendent of Central Excise in Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh, Accused of demanding ₹10,000 as illegal gratification for issuing a license surrender certificate.
2. FIR No. RC22(A)/2017: Filed against an Accounts Assistant in the South Central Railway, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh, for allegedly accepting ₹15,000 to expedite the processing of contract bills.

Both cases were registered by the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad, in Telangana. Following investigations, charge sheets were filed, and the cases were initially tried in the CBI Special Court at Hyderabad. However, subsequent jurisdictional changes mandated the transfer of these cases to courts in Andhra Pradesh.

The Legal Challenge

The Accused approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, questioning the validity of the investigations and trials. They argued:

1. Lack of Consent: After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the State Government’s general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act did not extend to the CBI in Telangana for investigating offences occurring in Andhra Pradesh.
2. Absence of Special Court Notification: The Accused contended that the designation of special courts under the PC Act ceased to apply post-bifurcation unless expressly notified by the new State governments.
3. Territorial Jurisdiction Issues: They asserted that the cases registered and investigated in Telangana, concerning offences in Andhra Pradesh, were procedurally invalid.

The High Court upheld these contentions and quashed the FIRs, prompting the CBI to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Core Legal Issues Examined by the Supreme Court

1. Jurisdiction of CBI Post-Bifurcation:

Did the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh render the CBI’s general consent under the DSPE Act ineffective for investigating offences within Andhra Pradesh?

1. Continuity of Pre-Bifurcation Laws:

Could the pre-bifurcation notifications and administrative orders regarding jurisdiction of special courts and the CBI’s authority continue to apply in the newly formed States?

1. Applicability of Special Court Notifications:

Could cases under the PC Act continue to be tried in courts designated by the pre-bifurcation State government?

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the factual matrix and the legal framework surrounding the issues.

1. Continuity of Pre-Bifurcation Laws:

The Court referred to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, and a subsequent Circular Memo dated May 26, 2014, which explicitly ensured that all pre-bifurcation laws, rules, and notifications would remain in force in both States until modified or repealed.

This continuity, the Court emphasized, extended to the general consent accorded under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and the notifications designating special courts under the PC Act.

1. Jurisdiction of CBI:

Relying on the DSPE Act, the Court noted that the CBI’s jurisdiction to investigate offences under a central law such as the PC Act did not automatically lapse with State bifurcation.

The Court highlighted that general consent granted by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in 1990 and extended through successive government orders continued to operate in Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation. This rendered the CBI’s investigations and subsequent filings legally valid.

1. Designation of Special Courts:

Under Section 4 of the PC Act, only designated special courts could try corruption cases. The Court clarified that pre-bifurcation notifications, such as G.O. Ms. No. 88 (2012), which designated the CBI Special Court in Hyderabad to handle cases from Rayalaseema districts, continued to apply to these districts post-bifurcation.

The subsequent administrative transfer of cases to courts in Andhra Pradesh (Kurnool) adhered to the principles of jurisdiction and legality.

1. Precedents Supporting CBI’s Powers:

The Court referred to landmark rulings such as Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI,  AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2023 which established that no State consent was required for the CBI to investigate offences involving central government employees, even if the offence occurred within State jurisdiction.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling, reinstating the cases for trial in the CBI Special Court at Kurnool. The Court declared:

• The CBI was well within its jurisdiction to investigate the offences and file chargesheets.
• Notifications designating special courts and granting general consent under the DSPE Act continued to apply post-bifurcation unless explicitly repealed or modified.
• Procedural lapses alleged by the Accused did not undermine the legality of the investigation or the trial.

Broader Implications of the Judgment

1. Reaffirmation of CBI’s Authority:

The judgment underscores the robustness of the DSPE Act in empowering the CBI to investigate corruption cases, particularly those involving central government employees.

1. Continuity of Legal Frameworks:

By upholding the continuity of pre-bifurcation laws and notifications, the Court provided clarity on the legal regime applicable to newly formed States.

1. Strengthening Anti-Corruption Mechanisms:

This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public administration by resolving procedural ambiguities.

Conclusion

This judgment exemplifies the Supreme Court’s role in addressing complex jurisdictional and procedural issues. By balancing the principles of continuity, jurisdiction, and procedural integrity, the Court has provided a robust legal framework for handling similar cases arising from State reorganizations. It is a definitive Statement on the seamless application of anti-corruption laws across bifurcated States, ensuring that governance and justice are not impeded by administrative changes.

This ruling will serve as a guiding precedent for legal practitioners and administrators grappling with jurisdictional challenges in a post-reorganization context.

 

Sushila Ram Varma

Advocate

Chief Legal Consultant

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services