Revision summary
Police is a State List subject; the CBI enters a State under the DSPE Act, 1946, mainly through Section 6 consent. General consent was the administrative convenience; Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal showed it can be withdrawn, forcing case-specific permission for new FIRs. The power is not absolute: court-ordered probes, Union Territories, and already-attached investigations are not killed by a political letter. Vineet Narain insulated the agency’s working; it did not abolish federal consent. A clear CBI statute would reduce standoffs without pretending India has a U.S.-style dual police sovereignty.
Model answer
Introduction
Police is a State subject; the Central Bureau of Investigation is a Union investigating police that enters a State only through a constitutional and statutory gate. That gate is consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Federalism explains both why States question CBI FIRs and why their power to withhold consent is not a complete veto.
Body
Federal design and the CBI’s legal basis
- Entry 2 of the State List puts police with the States; Entry 80 of the Union List allows the Union’s police to extend to a State only with that State’s consent, which is the federal hinge.
- The CBI traces to the DSPE Act, 1946: it is not a fully independent constitutional police of the kind Article 246 would invent from scratch, which is why States can call it a Union agency on their soil.
- Vineet Narain v. Union of India sought insulation of the CBI from executive pull, but it did not repeal the consent requirement or convert the Bureau into a federal police with a free run of the Map.
General consent, specific consent, and FIR lodging
- Section 6 of the DSPE Act requires the State Government’s consent for the CBI to exercise powers in that State; practice grew a ‘general consent’ so every case would not need a fresh letter.
- Withdrawal of general consent, as Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal did in 2018–20 (with other States at times joining the pattern), means the CBI must seek case-specific consent to register a fresh FIR and investigate inside that State.
- States argue that without this gate, a Union ministry could plant a police force on a rival State government — a classic federal grievance in a competitive party system.
- The CBI and the Union argue that corruption in central employees, multi-State crime, and court-ordered probes cannot be held hostage to a State’s political weather.
Why the State’s power is not absolute
- Consent is not needed in Union Territories, where the Union is the local police authority in the relevant sense.
- High Courts and the Supreme Court can order a CBI investigation under Articles 32 and 226; judicial federalism then overrides a withheld political consent because fundamental rights and a fair probe are not a State’s patronage.
- Once a valid investigation has begun, or where the offence is committed in a place already within DSPE jurisdiction, a later political withdrawal of general consent does not automatically kill every pending case; courts have treated abrupt withdrawal as unable to erase jurisdiction already attached.
- Central employees and specified central offences can still draw the CBI where the statutory notifications and the consent matrix so provide; the State cannot rewrite the Union’s power over its own servants by a press release.
- The Supreme Court’s federalism cases, including the NCT Delhi line on collaborative federalism, cut both ways: the Union must not treat States as field offices, and States must not treat national investigating agencies as foreign police when the Constitution has already shared the field.
Federal character: a two-sided limit
- India’s federal character is not dual sovereignty of the U.S. type; it is a Union of States with a strong Centre, a single citizenship, and All-India Services — yet police remains the most sensitive State List entry.
- A healthy federal bargain is therefore: CBI for complex, inter-State, and court-mandated cases; State police for ordinary crime; consent as a default courtesy, not as a shield for State-level impunity.
- Recommendation: a comprehensive CBI statute that clarifies consent, mandatory court-monitored probes in specified classes, and a federal crime list, so Andhra/West Bengal-style standoffs are not the only way to argue jurisdiction.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD SL[State List police] --> C[s.6 DSPE consent] C --> G[General consent] G --> W[Andhra WB withdrawal] W --> S[Case-specific consent] SC[SC HC ordered probe] --> CBI[CBI FIR and investigation] UT[Union Territory] --> CBI S --> CBI
Conclusion
States question CBI FIRs because police is a State subject and the DSPE Act makes consent the federal key. That key is real, as Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal showed by withdrawing general consent, but it is not absolute: court orders, Union Territories, pending jurisdiction, and central subjects still open the door. Indian federalism here is a negotiated police power, not a State veto and not a Union walk-in.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.
Next question in the 2021 paper (Q12). View answer →
-
If a State withdraws general consent, is the CBI banned forever on its soil?
No. It may still investigate with specific consent, in a Union Territory, or when a constitutional court so orders, and pending cases do not vanish automatically.
-
Does federalism mean the Union can never investigate in a State?
No. Indian federalism shares the field. Consent is the default gate, not a constitutional immunity for State-level crime involving Union law.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q14 · GS II · 15 marks
Examine the evolving pattern of Centre-State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India? -
2024 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism. -
2023 · Q15 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the significance of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act. To what extent does it reflect the accommodative spirit of federalism? -
2019 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
From the resolution of contentious issues regarding distribution of legislative powers by the courts, 'Principle of Federal Supremacy' and 'Harmonious Construction' have emerged. Explain. -
2016 · Q1 · GS II · 12 marks
Discuss the essentials of the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act and anomalies, if any, that have led to recent reported conflicts between the elected representatives and the institution of the Lieutenant Governor in the administration of Delhi. Do you think that this will give rise to a new trend in the functioning of the Indian federal politics? -
2016 · Q7 · GS II · 12 marks
Did the Government of India Act, 1935 lay down a federal constitution? Discuss. -
2015 · Q2 · GS II · 12 marks
The concept of cooperative federalism has been increasingly emphasised in recent years. Highlight the drawbacks in the existing structure and extent to which cooperative federalism would answer the shortcomings. -
2015 · Q4 · GS II · 12 marks
Khap panchayats have been in the news for functioning as extra - constitutional authorities, often delivering pronouncements amounting to human right violations. Discuss critically the actions taken by the legislative, executive and judiciary to set the things right in this regard.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
'Constitutional Morality' is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of 'Constitutional Morality' with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
Indian Constitution
Constitutional morality is fidelity to liberty, equality, dignity and the rule of law in the Constitution itself. Kesavananda (1973) locked those essential facets as basic structure. Navtej Johar (2018) preferred constitutional morality over social morality on Section 377. Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala, 2018) tested temple exclusion against Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25. NCT of Delhi (2018) used the doctrine to restrain a parallel Lieutenant Governor against an elected government.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness.
Executive and Judiciary
Women remain under-represented on Supreme Court and High Court benches despite a large pool at the Bar. Diversity improves judging in gender, family and workplace cases; equity and inclusiveness are Articles 14–16 values the Court itself enforces. The filter is informal networks and seniority practice, not a constitutional ban. Publish data, widen the district-judge and senior-advocate pool, and name gender diversity as a collegium criterion. Inclusion is about legitimacy of the Bench, not about a single judicial ideology.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the states to improve their fiscal position?
Governance and Policy
The 14th Finance Commission raised States’ share in the divisible pool from 32 to 42 per cent for 2015–20. Untied devolution, not only CSS, let States fund their own priorities and borrow on a more predictable base. Horizontal criteria helped poorer and forested States; revenue-deficit grants closed residual gaps. Local-body and disaster grants reduced raids on State revenue for third-tier and calamity costs. Cesses outside the pool and later GST shocks limited the gain; the 15th FC kept devolution near that high watermark at 41 per cent.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.