Supreme Court Restores CBI’s Jurisdiction in Post-Bifurcation Andhra Pradesh: “Impugned Judgment Quashing FIRs and Chargesheets Cannot Be Sustained”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to quash FIRs, chargesheets, and proceedings against two public servants accused of corruption. The Court held that the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh did not affect the CBI’s jurisdiction, as general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act remained valid. It restored the cases to the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool, directing trials to proceed in accordance with the law.

Facts

1. Accusations:
   • FIR No. 10(A)/2017 alleged that a Superintendent in Central Excise, Nandyal, demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹10,000 for issuing a license surrender certificate.
   • FIR No. RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD alleged that an Accounts Assistant in the South Central Railway demanded ₹15,000 to process contract bills for official work.
2. Investigation and Chargesheets:
   • The CBI registered and investigated the offenses under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
   • The chargesheets were filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, and were later transferred to Kurnool following jurisdictional reorganizations.
3. Legal Challenge:
   • The accused argued that the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in 2014 rendered the FIRs and investigations void due to the absence of specific consent from the new Andhra Pradesh government under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
   • The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the lack of consent and notification of jurisdiction invalidated the actions of the CBI and the Hyderabad court.

Issues

1. Did the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh invalidate the CBI’s jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIRs?
2. Was the High Court correct in holding that the absence of express consent from the Andhra Pradesh government vitiated the FIRs and chargesheets?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Jurisdiction Post-Bifurcation:
   • The bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh required explicit consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act for the CBI to act within the new state’s territories.
   • Notifications designating courts in Hyderabad ceased to have jurisdiction over districts in Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation.
2. Irregularities in the Process:
   • The FIRs were registered by the CBI in Telangana, even though the alleged offenses occurred in Andhra Pradesh. This was claimed to be a fundamental jurisdictional flaw.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Continuity of Consent:
   • The general consent granted by the undivided Andhra Pradesh in 1990 under Section 6 of the DSPE Act continued to be valid for both successor states until specifically revoked.
   • The Reorganisation Act provided for the continuity of laws, orders, and notifications unless explicitly repealed or amended.
2. Authority of Special Courts:
   • The notifications issued before bifurcation, conferring jurisdiction on Hyderabad CBI courts for cases from Rayalaseema districts, remained in force.
3. Central Government Employees:
   • The accused, being central government employees, were subject to investigation under central laws without requiring state consent.

Analysis of the Law

1. Consent Under the DSPE Act:
   • Section 6 of the DSPE Act requires state consent for the CBI to exercise jurisdiction over cases within a state’s boundaries. However, consent granted by the undivided Andhra Pradesh in 1990 was not revoked post-bifurcation, and the Court held that it continued to operate for the new Andhra Pradesh state.
2. Continuity of Laws:
   • Under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, laws, notifications, and administrative orders applicable in the undivided state remained valid in the successor states until repealed or modified.
   • The Court relied on precedents, including Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing v. CBI, to support this interpretation.
3. Jurisdiction of Special Courts:
   • The Court noted that notifications designating Hyderabad courts as special courts for Rayalaseema districts continued to apply post-bifurcation, ensuring jurisdiction over the cases.
4. Precedent Analysis:
   • In Kanwal Tanuj, the Supreme Court held that CBI investigations under central laws do not require state consent if they involve central government employees.
   • The judgment reinforced that central laws prevail in cases involving central employees, regardless of state jurisdiction.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Validity of Consent:
   • The Court held that the general consent granted by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh government in 1990 continued post-bifurcation for both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. This consent allowed the CBI to investigate offenses in Rayalaseema districts.
2. Jurisdiction of Hyderabad Courts:
   • Notifications issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act before bifurcation remained valid, permitting Hyderabad courts to exercise jurisdiction over cases from Rayalaseema.
3. Public Interest and Continuity:
   • The Court emphasized that interpreting the bifurcation laws to create a vacuum in jurisdiction would enable offenders to escape accountability, defeating the purpose of anti-corruption laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, holding that:

1. The CBI validly registered and investigated the FIRs.
2. The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool, has jurisdiction to try the cases.
3. The trials should proceed in accordance with the law.

Implications

1. Clarification on CBI Jurisdiction:
   • The ruling establishes that general consent under the DSPE Act remains valid post-state bifurcation unless explicitly revoked.
2. Reinforcement of Central Laws:
   • The judgment affirms the CBI’s authority to investigate central government employees under central laws, minimizing state interference.
3. Prevention of Legal Vacuums:
   • The decision ensures continuity of legal processes post-bifurcation, preventing jurisdictional gaps that could be exploited by offenders.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Rules on Gold Smuggling: Dismisses Ownership Claims, Upholds Absolute Confiscation, and Highlights Smuggling Deterrence and Procedural Compliance as Paramount