Discuss the constitutional basis on which High Courts direct CBI investigations, and examine the safeguards such orders must build in to prevent misuse against named individuals.

Article 226 confers on High Courts a plenary writ jurisdiction exercisable "for any other purpose", not confined to fundamental rights [1]. This allows courts to transfer a stalled or suspect investigation to the CBI — a power that is constitutionally sound but, being extraordinary, must be hedged with safeguards.

Constitutional basis

• Article 226 permits writs, orders and directions against the State, including the police, making judicial review of investigative inaction possible [1].
• In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), a Constitution Bench held that an Article 226 direction to the CBI to probe a cognisable offence within a State, even without State consent, violates neither federalism nor separation of powers [2].
• The CBI is not a constitutional body; it functions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, whose Section 6 ordinarily requires State consent — judicial direction is the recognised exception [3].
• The trigger is usually police inaction: Lalita Kumari (2013) made FIR registration mandatory where a cognisable offence is disclosed [4]. Recently, the Bombay High Court (2 September 2026) ordered a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian, closed earlier by Mumbai Police as an accidental death [5].

Safeguards against misuse

• Sparing and exceptional use — only where necessary to secure justice or protect fundamental rights, not as routine distrust of State police [2].
• No premature labelling of the named: the Bombay High Court expressly directed that no person be treated as accused unless the investigating officer finds sufficient material — a shield against political targeting and media trial [5].
• Reasoned orders, hearing the State, and confining the court's role to ordering investigation, not pronouncing guilt [2].
• Outcome discipline: chargesheet only if a cognisable offence is made out, else closure with liberty to file a protest petition [5].
• Institutional capacity — the 2nd ARC's Fifth Report, Public Order, urged separating investigation from law-and-order to reduce such transfers [6].

Judicial transfer to the CBI is thus a remedy of last resort that upholds the Article 21 right to fair investigation. Strengthening State investigative agencies, as the ARC recommends, would make such orders rarer — while calibrated safeguards ensure the remedy vindicates victims without condemning the unaccused.