The Delhi High Court has requested the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to clarify whether it has the authority to investigate cases in Chhattisgarh, following a plea by former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Babulal Agarwal. In his petition, Agarwal argued that the state never granted its consent to the CBI.
The CBI had previously arrested Agarwal on corruption charges related to his tenure as health secretary in the Chhattisgarh government. The case was registered against Agarwal in 2010, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) later registered a case alleging that Agarwal had played a role in awarding tender contracts related to the World Bank-aided Malaria Control Program to non-existent entities, causing economic losses to the government.
The court directed the CBI to respond to the petition by August 28, and noted that under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE), the CBI cannot exercise its powers or jurisdiction in any state without the consent of that state unless approved by the High Court or the Supreme Court, or ordered by the court to conduct an investigation.
Agarwal’s advocate, Somesh Tiwari, filed the petition, and Abhimanyu Bhandari, who appeared for Agarwal, argued that the CBI did not have jurisdiction to investigate the FIR as Chhattisgarh had not given its consent to the CBI. However, the CBI claimed that the government of Chhattisgarh had given consent through a letter in February 2001, and the Department of Personnel and Training had taken up the investigation of offenses specified in the Schedule under Section V.
Bhandari referred to a notification issued by Chhattisgarh in July 2012, in which the state government refused to provide its consent. He also mentioned a response received from the Chhattisgarh government to his RTI application, stating that until 2013, no such consent had been given to the CBI. The court asked the CBI to clarify whether it had been given consent and, if not, what the implications would be.
