Discuss the constitutional and legal basis for CBI investigation in states, with reference to recent state-level demands for central probes into examination scams.

The CBI has no independent statute of its own; it functions as the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the DSPE Act, 1946 [1]. Since "police" is a State subject, its entry into a State rests on consent — a tension visible in Jharkhand, where JSSC-CGL aspirants demanded a CBI probe into an alleged paper leak [5].

Constitutional basis

• Federal division of powers: police and public order fall in the State List (Seventh Schedule), while the Union's power flows from the Union List entry on the Delhi Special Police Establishment — hence a consent-based model, not a general central policing power.
• Judicial review: in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), a Constitution Bench held that a High Court under Article 226 (and the Supreme Court under Article 32) may direct a CBI probe without State consent, and that this violates neither federalism nor separation of powers [2].
• Recruitment fairness itself is anchored in Articles 14 and 16 — equality of opportunity in public employment.

Legal basis

• Section 5 of the DSPE Act extends CBI jurisdiction to a State; Section 6 bars its exercise without that State Government's consent, given either generally or case-by-case [1].
• Consequently, where a State withholds or withdraws general consent, only a constitutional court's direction can open the door.

Examination scams: the demand for a central probe

• In Jharkhand, the government offered a judicial committee under a retired judge, a CID criminal probe and a fast-track court with a 90-day charge-sheet deadline; protesting aspirants rejected this, seeking a CBI-ED investigation [5].
• A legal gap sharpens this distrust: the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 covers only central bodies such as UPSC, SSC and NTA [3][4], leaving State commissions to their own laws.

Thus, CBI entry into States is a calibrated balance between federal autonomy and judicial oversight. The durable fix lies less in agency-shopping than in States enacting mirror anti-leak laws, secure question-paper logistics and time-bound court-monitored probes — restoring the promise of Article 16 that merit alone decides public employment.