Examine the tensions between Central investigative agencies and State governments in India, using the example of Enforcement Directorate–State government friction over jurisdiction.

Q. Examine the tensions between Central investigative agencies and State governments in India, using the example of Enforcement Directorate–State government friction over jurisdiction. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Police and public order are State subjects (Entries 1–2, List II), yet Central agencies like the ED and CBI operate within State territory under Union laws. This overlap has turned investigative jurisdiction into a live federal fault line, most visibly in the ED–Tamil Nadu dispute.

Constitutional and statutory roots of the friction - The CBI must obtain State "general consent" under Section 6, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 [1]; several States have withdrawn it, shrinking Central reach. - The ED, by contrast, draws powers directly from the PMLA, 2002, needing no State consent — an asymmetry States read as a bypass of List II. - Courts can order transfers regardless of consent, adding a third actor to the Centre–State equation.

The ED–State flashpoint: the DVAC case - Tamil Nadu's DVAC arrested ED Enforcement Officer Ankit Tiwari for allegedly taking a ₹20 lakh bribe in Dindigul, and searched the ED's Madurai office. - The ED moved the Supreme Court in 2024 to shift the probe to the CBI; in August 2026 a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant mulled transfer while keeping the stay on DVAC proceedings [2]. - The Court framed the larger question: should offences by Union employees be probed by the CBI or the State of jurisdiction [2] — a genuine conflict-of-interest problem on both sides.

Wider implications - ED registered 4,622 PMLA cases in five years with convictions in only 43 [3], fuelling State claims of process-as-punishment. - Erodes mutual trust essential to cooperative federalism, and risks parallel, retaliatory investigations.

The dispute is less about who is guilty than about who decides. The Punchhi Commission urged consultative Centre–State mechanisms and restraint in unilateral Union action in internal security matters [4][5]. Institutionalising prior consultation, time-bound probes and a neutral referral mechanism for cross-jurisdiction cases would let anti-corruption enforcement advance without hollowing out States' constitutional policing autonomy.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 — India Code — Section 6 State consent requirement for CBI jurisdiction 2. SC mulls shift of T.N. case against ED officer to CBI — The Hindu (7 Aug 2026) — DVAC bribery case, CJI Surya Kant Bench, stay retained, larger jurisdictional question 3. Ministry of Finance reply, Rajya Sabha (August 2026) — Parliament of India — PMLA cases registered versus convictions 4. Report of the Commission on Centre-State Relations (Punchhi Commission), Vol. V: Internal Security, Criminal Justice and Centre-State Co-operation — Inter-State Council Secretariat — recommendations on Centre-State cooperation in criminal justice 5. Inter-State Council Standing Committee concludes deliberations on Punchhi Commission report — PIB — official follow-up on consultative Centre-State mechanisms