SC says routine transfer impermissible
The Supreme Court (SC), in a catena of cases, has set some broad guidelines for transferring cases to the CBI.
The Kerala High Court also says involvement of CBI should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
Such transfers should not be a routine affair and should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances when it is evident that the state police cannot conduct a fair investigation. The SC requires the high courts to provide explicit reasons for transferring investigations to the CBI.
The SC says the High courts should not routinely transfer cases to the CBI without providing specific justifications. Explicit reasons for transferring the case should be clearly articulated in the court’s order.
When fair investigation is compromised
The CBI’s involvement should be limited to situations where the state police’s ability to conduct a fair investigation is compromised. This could include cases where there are allegations of corruption involving high-ranking officials or where the investigation is likely to be politically influenced. And there can be cases with national or international ramifications also warrant CBI involvement.
CBI investigation may build public confidence
The court recognizes the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system. The CBI investigations can instil greater trust in the investigation process, especially when there are concerns about the fairness of the state police’s investigation
SC judgements on CBI Investigation
In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P v Sahngoo Ram Arya [2002 (5) SCC 521], the SC held that an order directing an investigation by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other agency.
To be exercised in exceptional cases, sparingly
The judgment in Himanshu Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [(2023) 12 SCC 592] says, an order directing the CBI to conduct investigation cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local Police and the power is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations. In an appropriate case when the Court feels that the investigation by the State Police authorities is not in a proper direction, and to do complete justice in the case and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the Court may be justified in such circumstances to handover the investigation to an independent agency like CBI. Even after the filing of the charge sheet, the court is empowered, in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI. The SC further observed that one factor that Courts may consider is that such transfer of investigation to the CBI is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies.
No inflexible guidelines can be laid down
In State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [2010 (3) SCC 571], while considering the prayer for investigation by the CBI, a Constitution Bench of the SC held that Constitutional Courts are fully empowered to direct for CBI investigation and no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such powers should be exercised. But such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the State Police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations, or where the incident may have national and international ramifications, or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.
When high officials are involves in alleged offence
In K. V. Rajendran v CBCID [2013 (12) SCC 480], the SC held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where high officials of State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted / biased.
The court must ensure fair investigation
In Amar Nath Chaubey v Union of India, [(2021) 11 SCC 804], in paragraph 11 of the judgment the SC says that the police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime in accordance with law as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police do not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police.
The SC adds that once the conscience of the court is satisfied, from the materials on record, that the police has not investigated properly or apparently is remiss in the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law.
References
- Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P v Sahngoo Ram Arya [2002 (5) SCC 521]
- Himanshu Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [(2023) 12 SCC 592]
- State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [2010 (3) SCC 571]
- V. Rajendran v CBCID [2013 (12) SCC 480]
- Amar Nath Chaubey v Union of India, [(2021) 11 SCC 804]
