Discuss the constitutional basis and limits of the judiciary's power to order CBI investigations without State consent.

Police is a State subject (Entry 2, List II). Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946 allows the CBI to act in a State only with that State's consent [2]. Constitutional courts can override this bar. The power is real, but it is deliberately kept narrow.

Constitutional basis

• Articles 32 and 226: In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), a Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court and High Courts can order a CBI probe without State consent. A statute cannot restrict the courts' duty to protect fundamental rights [1].
• No breach of federalism: The Bench reasoned that such an order does not violate the federal structure. When courts give it, they act as guardians of the Constitution, not as agents of the Union [1].
• Article 21 and fair investigation: The right to a fair and impartial probe matters most when the State police are themselves accused.
• Executive acceptance: The Union accepts that cases referred by constitutional courts need no State consent. It also accepts that a State's withdrawal of consent applies only to future cases [3].

Limits

• Sparing and cautious use: The 2010 Bench called the power extraordinary. It is meant for exceptional cases, such as restoring public confidence or handling incidents with national ramifications. It should not be used just because a party alleges bias [1].
• Federal balance: Routine use would empty Section 6 of meaning. Eight States, including West Bengal (November 2018), had withdrawn general consent by 2021 [4]. This shows a deep trust deficit between States and the Centre.
• Agency neutrality in question: In 2024, the Supreme Court held West Bengal's Article 131 suit maintainable and found the CBI to be under the Union's superintendence [5]. Its merits are still pending. Courts therefore hand cases to an agency whose independence the States themselves dispute.
• Risk of political litigation: Central agencies now use the courts to get around State resistance. For example, the ED asked for a CBI probe into the alleged obstruction of its raids on I-PAC by the then West Bengal government. The Supreme Court reserved its verdict in October 2026 [6]. Courts then risk becoming the venue for electoral disputes.

Judicial power to order CBI probes keeps the rule of law intact where State machinery is compromised. It works only if used as a rare exception. Three steps would help: a final ruling in the Article 131 suit, a time limit for States to decide on consent requests, and statutory autonomy for the CBI in the spirit of Vineet Narain. Together they would let cooperative federalism and fair investigation reinforce each other.