"Withdrawal of general consent to the CBI by States reflects a trust deficit in cooperative federalism." Critically examine, with reference to recent Centre–State disputes over central agencies.

Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, the CBI needs a State's consent before it can investigate in that State. By 2021, eight States had withdrawn general consent, including West Bengal in 2018 [1]. This shows a real trust deficit. It is also, in part, a lawful federal assertion, because police is a State subject.

Withdrawal as a symptom of trust deficit

• Perceived selective targeting: opposition-ruled States say central agencies are used against them before elections. The TMC called the ED's 2026 raids on I-PAC an attempt to derail it ahead of the Assembly polls [2].
• Agency versus State police: in the I-PAC case, the ED accuses the then CM, the DGP and senior Kolkata Police officers of obstructing its raids. It wants the Supreme Court to order a CBI probe [2].
• Courts in place of dialogue: West Bengal sued the Union under Article 131 over CBI cases filed without its consent. The SC held the suit maintainable in 2024 [3].
• Pressure shifts to the ED: PMLA has no State-consent clause, so the ED becomes the central agency that can still act in these States. It had 1,739 cases at trial by 2025 [4], which widens the friction.

Counter-view: not merely distrust

• Constitutional design: police and public order fall in List II. Consent under Section 6 is a federal safeguard written into the statute, not defiance of the Centre.
• Bargaining, not breakdown: the Union government has criticised States that withdraw general consent but still grant it case by case when it suits them [5]. Cooperation therefore continues, though selectively.
• Safeguards survive: constitutional courts can still order CBI probes without State consent, as held in State of WB v. CPDR (2010) [6]. Withdrawal also applies only to future cases, not past ones [7].

Way forward

• Targeted reform: a parliamentary committee found that withdrawal of consent hampers investigations. It proposed amending the DSPE Act for cybercrime cases [8]. Time-bound decisions on consent could be a wider middle path.
• Insulating agencies: fixed tenure and collegial selection, on the lines of Vineet Narain, could be extended to the ED.
• Institutional dialogue: the Inter-State Council (Article 263) could become a standing forum for agency disputes.

Withdrawal of consent reflects both mistrust and legitimate State autonomy. Cases like I-PAC show that clashes are fought out in court when dialogue fails. Neutral agencies, accountable State police and structured Centre–State dialogue would restore the cooperative federalism the Constitution intends, without weakening the rule of law.