Should offences by Central government employees always be probed by Central agencies rather than State police? Critically examine in the context of cooperative federalism.

Q. Should offences by Central government employees always be probed by Central agencies rather than State police? Critically examine in the context of cooperative federalism. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Police is a State subject (Entry 2, List II), while the CBI's jurisdiction inside a State rests on "general consent" under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 [1]. The Supreme Court's move to consider shifting Tamil Nadu DVAC's bribery case against an Enforcement Directorate officer to the CBI revives this contest [2]. A blanket rule of Central primacy is neither constitutionally sound nor practically desirable.

Case for probe by Central agencies - Disciplinary logic: service conditions, transfers and departmental action against Union employees vest with the Centre, so a Central probe aligns investigation with sanction and prosecution authority. - Insulation from retaliation: the ED argues the DVAC case answers its money-laundering probes against State politicians — a risk where Centre–State relations are adversarial [2]. - Cross-border offences: bribery linked to PMLA, customs or tax functions often spans States; the CBI's countrywide reach suits such cases. - Judicial route exists: constitutional courts may direct a CBI probe even without State consent [3].

Case against an automatic rule - Federal erosion: the offence occurs on State soil, with local complainants and witnesses; routine transfer hollows out Entry 2 and signals distrust of State police. - Consent withdrawn widely: ten States, including Tamil Nadu, have withdrawn general consent, showing the depth of the trust deficit [3]. - Conflict of interest cuts both ways: moving a case against a Central officer to another Central agency is no more neutral; the Second ARC urged genuinely independent anti-corruption machinery [4]. - Justice delayed: DVAC proceedings have remained stayed since January 2024, leaving the trial in limbo [2].

Hence the answer is calibrated, not absolute: State police should ordinarily retain jurisdiction, with transfer as a judicially-tested exception where bias or inter-State spread is demonstrated. Statutory guidelines for consent, time-bound court-monitored transfers and a joint Centre–State mechanism, as the Punchhi Commission's cooperative-federalism framework envisages [5], can protect both State autonomy and honest investigation.

(~335 words)

Sources: 1. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (India Code) — CBI's statutory basis; Section 6 State consent requirement 2. SC mulls shift of T.N. case against ED officer to CBI — The Hindu — ED officer bribery case, ED's retaliation plea, stay on DVAC proceedings since January 2024 3. States Barring CBI Investigation — PIB, Ministry of Personnel — States withdrawing general consent; CBI probe possible on directions of a constitutional court 4. Ethics in Governance, Second ARC Fourth Report — DARPG — need for independent anti-corruption investigating machinery 5. Report of the Commission on Centre-State Relations (Punchhi Commission) — Inter-State Council Secretariat — cooperative federalism framework for Centre–State institutional disputes