Snehal Upadhyay-
The High Court of Bombay stated that a state government has the right to raise concerns if any investigation done by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) goes beyond the directions of the Court in absence of the State’s consent.
The division bench comprising Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar dismissed a plea filed by Maharashtra Government and permitted the CBI to investigate transfer and postings of police officers in Maharashtra and to reinstate dismissed Assistant Police Inspector Sachin Waze after 15 years.
The bench rejected CBI’s argument that the state has no locus standi (the right to appear in the Court) to challenge FIR (First Information Report) filed against the former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh alleging corruption charges.
The bench observed that the Court may under Article 226 (Power of the High Court to issue certain Writs) order CBI to investigate, but permitting investigating agency with “unfettered powers” would render Section 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 otiose(redundant). Which takes away the liberty of the central government to investigate a state without its consent.
The Court dwell upon Entry 2 in List II of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the State in the matters relating to Policing subject to Entry 2A and Entry 80 of List I.
“The hallmark of federalism is the distribution of executive, legislative and judicial authority among the organs which are coordinated yet independent”, the bench observed.