Courts directing CBI probes without State consent strengthen accountability but strain federalism. Critically examine.

Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, the CBI needs a State's consent before it can investigate there [1]. In State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010), however, a Constitution Bench held that the SC and HCs can order CBI probes without that consent, but only sparingly [2]. The Punjab and Haryana HC's October 2026 order for a CBI probe into allegations linked to the Punjab CM's office has revived this tension [3].

How such directions strengthen accountability

• Remove conflict of interest: State police report to the executive under scrutiny. The HC said it was dissatisfied with how the Punjab Police handled the case [3].
• Get past the consent blockade: A Parliamentary Standing Committee (2025) noted that withdrawal of consent by several States has hindered investigations [4].
• Constitutional basis: The power comes from Articles 32 and 226, which make courts the guardians of a fair investigation and of the rule of law [2].
• Public trust: Allegations of cash for tenders and transfer-posting corruption in high office need a probe that is seen to be independent [3].

How they strain federalism

• State subject overridden: "Police" is in the State List (Entry 2). A court order sets aside a consent decision the State took deliberately under the DSPE Act [1].
• Vague threshold: CPDR never defined "exceptional" [2], so outcomes vary from bench to bench. Here the HC relied on a "cumulative assessment" of the material [3].
• Fear of political misuse: The allegations came from the ED, and a second Central agency has now been ordered in. Punjab cites basic principles of federalism and its poll-bound status [3].
• Administrative matters treated as crimes: A PIL can turn administrative decisions into a criminal case before the State's own investigation is complete [3].

Way forward

• Codify the test: The SC should spell out when a case is "exceptional", for example when the accused controls the investigating police or the State probe has demonstrably stalled.
• Give corruption probes an independent home: Integrate the CVC and the CBI's anti-corruption wing under the Lokpal, as a Standing Committee recommended in 2015 [5].
• Negotiate consent: The Union should consult States that have withdrawn consent [4], with safeguards against agency action timed to elections.

Judicial directions are a necessary safety valve against States shielding their own leaders. They lose legitimacy, however, when the criteria for using them are unclear. Clear standards and institutionally independent investigators would allow accountability and cooperative federalism to reinforce each other, in keeping with SDG 16's call for accountable institutions.