Supreme Court Restores CBI Trials, Holds Reorganisation Circular Preserves CBI Jurisdiction

A Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal heard appeals by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a common Andhra Pradesh High Court order of 13.04.2023 that had quashed two FIRs and consequent proceedings on grounds of alleged lack of state consent and absence of a Special Court notification after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. The appeals involved whether the CBI, which had registered and investigated offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had competence to act where the alleged offences occurred in districts that remained with the State of Andhra Pradesh though the FIRs were registered in Hyderabad (Telangana).

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's common order dated 13.04.2023 and restored CC Nos.13 of 2022 and 15 of 2022 (arising from FIR Nos.10(A)/2017 and RC22(A)/2017) to the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Kurnool for trial. The Court held that the administrative and statutory instruments that existed immediately before the appointed day under the A.P. Re-organisation Act, and the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of that Act, preserved relevant "laws" and notifications unless and until they were altered, repealed or amended. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the light of the discussion as above and construction of the Govt. orders it can only be held that the High Court had erred in holding that there was no notification issued conferring the status of Special Court in terms of Section 4 of the PC Act to the CBI Court, Hyderabad. ... In such circumstances and in the light of the conclusion already arrived at, the terms of the provisions under circular memo dated 26.05.2014 all 'laws' applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the new States, namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh despite the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till such time they were altered, repealed or amended." The Court further relied on precedent such as Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing & Investment (P) Ltd. to hold that the DSPE/CBI could investigate central offences without a fresh state consent where the statutory and administrative framework continued to operate.

Background The disputes arose from two separate CBI FIRs registered by the ACB, Hyderabad: FIR No.10(A)/2017 (alleging demand and acceptance of ₹10,000 by a Central Excise Superintendent at Nandyal on 09.05.2017) and FIR No.RC22(A)/2017-CBI/HYD (alleging demand and receipt of ₹15,000 by an Accounts Assistant at Guntakal on 20.11.2017). Investigations concluded and charge-sheets were filed in late 2017–early 2018; the CBI Courts at Hyderabad took cognizance and assigned CC Nos.2/2018 and 6/2018. After administrative redefinitions of territorial jurisdiction and High Court notifications in 2019, the matters were transferred and renumbered (later becoming CC Nos.13/2022 and 15/2022 on the Kurnool docket). The petitioners in the writ petitions challenged the legality of registration, investigation and trial on the grounds that, after the 2014 bifurcation, the CBI lacked requisite consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and that no fresh notification under Section 4 of the PC Act had been issued to confer Special Judge status to CBI Courts for the districts in question.

The High Court accepted those pleas and quashed the FIRs and further proceedings, reasoning that general consent and special court notifications post-bifurcation applied only to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. The CBI appealed, arguing that Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 (26.05.2014) — which stated that "'law' includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh" — preserved pre-existing notifications and that earlier government orders granting general consent (including G.O.Ms. dated 14.05.1990 and subsequent extensions) continued to operate until altered.

The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, the Circular Memo, earlier government orders and binding precedents on DSPE/CBI jurisdiction and concluded that the High Court had erred in holding the proceedings vitiated. The Court restored the trial files and directed that, "after following the requisite procedures and in accordance with law the trial Court shall continue with those cases against the respective first respondent."

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 11; Criminal Appeal Nos. (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 and SLP (Crl.) No. 10038 of 2023) Case Title: The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General For the Respondent(s): Counsel names not specified in the reported judgment

New Delhi; January 02, 2025.