Withdrawal of general consent to the CBI by States reflects a deeper trust deficit in Indian federalism. Discuss, and suggest institutional reforms.

Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, the CBI cannot operate in a State without that State's consent [1]. Several States, including West Bengal and Punjab, have withdrawn this general consent. They did so less because of any legal defect than because they distrust how the Centre uses its agencies.

Withdrawal as a symptom of trust deficit

• Perceived partisanship: West Bengal withdrew consent in 2018 and then sued the Union under Article 131. The SC held the suit maintainable and noted that the CBI is under the Union's superintendence [3].
• Constitutional asymmetry: "Police" is a State subject, but the CBI answers to the Centre. States therefore see Central probes as entry through a side door.
• Ways around consent: Courts can order CBI probes without consent (State of WB v. CPDR, 2010) [2]. In 2026 the Punjab and Haryana HC ordered a probe linked to the CM's office, and Punjab called this a breach of federalism [6]. The ED, acting under PMLA, needs no consent at all.
• Trust runs both ways: The HC was dissatisfied with how the Punjab Police handled the case [6]. This shows the Centre's fear that States will shield their own leaders.

Consequences

• A parliamentary panel noted that withdrawal of consent has hindered investigations, especially into inter-State cybercrime [4].
• Approvals now come case by case, and disputes go to courts (Art. 131 suits, appeals), which delays justice.

Institutional reforms

• Autonomy for anti-corruption work: Place the CVC and the CBI's anti-corruption wing under the Lokpal, as a 2015 Standing Committee recommended [5].
• Negotiated consent: The MHA should consult States that have withdrawn consent [4]. A category-wise framework could cover cyber and inter-State crimes.
• Judicial clarity: The SC could set an objective test for the "sparing" use of court-ordered probes [2].
• Federal forums: Resolve disputes over agencies in the Inter-State Council.
• State-side reform: Insulate State vigilance bodies from political control, as the Prakash Singh (2006) directions intend.

Consent withdrawal and the ways around it both come from mutual suspicion. A statutory, independent investigative framework with a predictable role for States would restore cooperative federalism and accountability together, as the Constitution intends.