General Consent to CBI: Why are States Withdrawing It?

general consent

As more Indian states withdraw the general consent to CBI for probe triggering a controversy around crucial governance policies, here’s a detailed look at the rules and reasons behind the non-compliance of the state.

This week, Jharkhand and Kerala withdrew successively a general consent CBI needs to probe cases in their state. The country’s premier investigating agency should thus mandatorily secure special permission from Ranchi and Thiruvananthapuram ahead of inquiries in their administrative regions.

The twin development is new, but they aren’t unprecedented in India. In the past two years, as many as eight states barred CBI from functioning in their territory without specific approval. The reason is largely common: alleged harassment by the Union government, which is apparently misusing its agency for political gains.

The other states where CBI lost the general consent are Maharashtra (October 2020), Rajasthan (June 2020), Chhattisgarh (January 2019), West Bengal and Mizoram (both Nov 2018). TDP-ruled Andhra Pradesh did withdraw the consent in late 2018, but reinstated it the next year when Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy came to power. Tripura and Sikkim, too, had gone for such a step at one stage.

Congress-led Punjab continues to give general consent to CBI, but it has withdrawn permission for a bunch of sacrilege-related cases the agency was probing since 2015 (during the Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP regime). Today, it’s a Special Investigation Team handling the cases.

For CBI, or the Central Bureau of Investigation, the withdrawals of consent amount to a dent in its power. The 1965-established non-statutory body, which generally probes breaches of central laws and organised multi-state crime, deals even with international cases. Headquartered in Delhi, it is India’s official single point of contact for liaison with the Interpol. The agency, under the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, is exempted from Right to Information.

Pre-probe protocols

The National Investigation Agency and the National Intelligence Grid, too, are exempted from RTI. But, unlike the two counter-terrorism bodies, CBI, to carry out a probe in a state, requires the government’s nod.

The Centre can authorise CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country, but only with the consent of the pertinent state. “The Supreme Court and High Courts, however, can order CBI to investigate such a crime anywhere in the country without the consent of the State,” the CBI manual states. The crimes are usually on the alleged involvement of central government employees in income-tax violations or anti-national acts, including spying.

Usually, states, with its police that manage law and order, give CBI a “general consent” for a probe. (Inversely, if it’s the state needing a CBI investigation, its government will make the request to the agency. Subsequently, CBI gets a central notification as the investigator.)

On the other hand, there can be instances where a high court or the Supreme court seeks a CBI probe. That implies a natural consent of the state or union government—and a central government notification follows.

When consent is denied

When a state government withdraws consent to CBI, the agency becomes unable to register the case. The agency has no option but to secure a case-specific consent from the state.

Thus, CBI personnel entering a state without securing the government’s consent lose all powers of a police officer. The agency is forced to seek the state’s permission for not just each case, but every search it conducts.

Technically, CBI loses the power it enjoys under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DPSE) Act, 1946. That law traces to the agency’s rudimentary existence in 1941, when it probed cases of bribery and corruption in the War & Supply Department of India during World War II.

It is section 6 of the DSPE Act that requires CBI to secure the state’s permission before taking up investigation and which enables the state government to withdraw its general consent to CBI.

Even when the government denies it, the agency will retain its power to continue to probe cases registered when general consent existed.

Legal remedies

No consent apart, CBI can in existing cases carry out searches in the state after securing a local court warrant. Where the search is ‘surprise’, the agency can make use of Section 166 of CrPC that permits a local police officer to carry it out in his/her jurisdiction on behalf of another (from CBI).

Also, if CBI feels such a search can lead to loss of evidence, the agency’s officer can conduct it on one’s own after serving the local officer a notice. (CrPC Section 66 permits it.) Further, CBI can still register cases in Delhi and arrest/prosecute ministers or MPs if some part of the offence is linked with the national capital.

However, consent withdrawn, CBI is barred from registering a case within the jurisdiction of the state.

States’ reasons

Jharkhand on November 5 shut its gates to CBI. The order was by the regime of Shibu Soren, who had strongly objected to NIA’s October 2020 arrest of octogenarian Father Stan Swami in the Bhima Koregaon case.

Kerala, which did it on 4 November, was provoked by CBI’s ways of probe into alleged FCRA violations in an apartment construction with funding from Emirates Red Crescent as part of the state’s Life Mission.

Maharashtra on October 21 withdrew consent, soon after CBI took over the probe into a complaint filed over a ‘TRP scam’ in Uttar Pradesh.


Read: Republic TV TRP Scam: Here’s Your Primer


In July, the Congress government in Rajasthan withdrew consent a day after the opposition BJP sought a CBI probe into leaked audio tapes allegedly containing talks between rebel Congress MLAs and a Union Minister from the state.

Chhattisgarh in January last year withdrew consent after a panel led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi removed Alok Verma as the CBI chief after a CVC enquiry report accused him of corruption.

West Bengal in November 2018 claimed to have lost faith in central agencies due to their “misuse” of powers and withdrew consent to CBI. Similar was Mizoram’s reason for an identical action.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.