Discuss the constitutional and legal basis for transferring investigations from State police/CID to the CBI. Examine this in light of recent exam malpractice cases in States.

Investigation of crime falls to the States, yet a citizen's right to a fair and impartial probe is a constitutional guarantee. The tension between the two is resolved through judicially supervised transfer of cases to the CBI — an option now invoked repeatedly in State recruitment-exam scandals.

Constitutional basis

• Police and public order are State subjects; the CBI has no independent constitutional charter of its own, so transfer is an exception, not the rule.
• Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to direct a CBI probe. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), a Constitution Bench held such a direction neither impinges on the federal structure nor violates separation of powers [1].
• The underlying right is Article 21 — a fair investigation — which courts invoke sparingly, in exceptional cases where State impartiality is doubted.

Statutory basis and its limits

• The CBI operates under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 6 bars it from exercising powers in a State without that State's consent [2].
• Several States have withdrawn "general consent", making court-ordered transfer practically the only route — the exact situation in exam-malpractice litigation.

Examined through exam malpractice cases

• In the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Prelims case, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre, the State and the JPSC on an Article 32 plea for an independent, time-bound CBI probe, the investigation being with the State CID [3].
• The core grievance is structural conflict of interest: a State agency investigating a State constitutional body (Article 315), amid resignations from the Commission itself.
• A legal gap aggravates this: the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 covers only Central examining bodies, leaving State exams to uneven local machinery [4].

Judicial transfer to the CBI is thus a constitutional safety valve for credibility, not a routine substitute for State policing. The durable remedy lies in States enacting anti-leak laws on the 2024 template, auditing private exam vendors, and mandating transparency in evaluation — so that public trust rests on institutions rather than on repeated appeals to the courts.