Supreme Court Upholds CBI's Jurisdiction in Corruption Cases After State Bifurcation.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation VS A. Satish Kumar & Ors, reversed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals accused of corruption. The Supreme Court's judgment clarified the jurisdictional powers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the validity of actions taken based on pre-existing laws and notifications following the bifurcation of the state of Andhra Pradesh.

Case Background The CBI registered two separate FIRs against A. Satish Kumar and Challa Sreenivasulu (respondents), who are government servants, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), for the offenses committed in the districts of Kurnool and Ananthapur, which formed part of the newly formed state of Andhra Pradesh after its bifurcation from the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh in 2014.

The cases, originally filed and investigated before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, Telangana, after bifurcation and reorganization of the territorial jurisdiction, stood transferred for trial to the Special Court for CBI Cases, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

The respondents filed writ petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arguing that the CBI lacked the jurisdiction to register the FIRs and conduct investigations in the newly formed state of Andhra Pradesh without obtaining fresh consent from the state government.The High Court accepted contentions of the respondent's plea and quashed the FIRs and further proceedings.

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court which had quashed the proceeding and held that the CBI was empowered to register the FIRs and investigate the same in furtherance of the general consent already extended by the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh and on the principle of legal continuity of laws and notifications after the bifurcation of the state.

The Supreme Court emphasized the following key points in its judgment:

Legal Continuity post-State Bifurcation: The court referred to the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014, and the Circular Memo issued on 26.05.2014 explaining that all laws applicable to the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh shall continue to apply to the newly formed states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana till altered, repealed, or amended. The principle of legal continuity would also cover government orders, notifications, and other instruments having the force of law.

General Consent to CBI under the DSPE Act: The court observed that the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh had granted general consent to the CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) in 1990. This general consent had been extended through subsequent government orders, and remained in effect even after the state’s bifurcation. The court emphasized that this general consent applied to investigations against both private individuals and government employees in cases involving offenses under Central Acts, such as the PC Act.

Jurisdiction of the Special Court: The court recognized the validity of the notifications issued prior to the bifurcation designating the CBI Court in Hyderabad as the Special Court to try offenses under the PC Act in the districts that later became part of the state of Andhra Pradesh. The court held that these notifications continued to be valid under the principle of legal continuity and conferred jurisdiction upon the CBI Court in Hyderabad to take cognizance of the offenses.

CBI's Power to Investigate Offenses under Central Acts: The court cited its judgments in the cases of Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Ors. and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. to affirm the CBI's power to investigate offenses under Central Acts even when the accused are government employees working within the territory of a particular state. The court held that the requirement of consent from the state government under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is not applicable in such cases.

Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the criminal proceedings in the Special Court for CBI Cases in Kurnool. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal continuity following state bifurcation and reaffirmed the CBI's authority to investigate offenses under Central Acts.

Coram: Justice C. T. Ravikumar, and Justice Rajesh Bindal
Between: Central Bureau of Investigation VS A. Satish Kumar & Ors
Date of Judgment: 02-01-2025