The West Bengal government contended before the Supreme Court that whenever the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) gains entry into a state for investigation, it typically paves the way for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to follow suit. This argument was presented while opposing the conduct of CBI probes within the state.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government before a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, emphasized that these developments carry significant implications for the Indian political landscape.

The Bench was listening to arguments in an original suit initiated by the West Bengal government against the Central government regarding the purported misuse of the CBI in affairs related to the State.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal reiterated the State's stance that the CBI cannot investigate cases pertaining to West Bengal without the general consent of the State government.

"We are dealing with a statute [Delhi Special Police Establishment Act] that impacts the federal structure of this country. [General] Consent is necessary before you get entry in the State," he argued.

"Once you give a foothold to the CBI in a State, soon after the ED [Enforcement Directorate] also enters for investigating the predicate offence. It has huge ramifications on the polity of this country."

The suit filed by the West Bengal government underscores that the Trinamool Congress (TMC)-led State administration has revoked its general consent for the CBI. Consequently, it has been argued that the CBI is no longer authorized to conduct investigations within West Bengal.

This suit is one of two cases initiated by the West Bengal government against the Central government following the CBI's initiation of a probe in 2021 into election-related violence within the State.

Representing the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated today that the original suit filed by the West Bengal government is not maintainable and should be dismissed. Mehta maintained the Centre's position that the CBI is an independent entity and does not fall under the direct control of the Central government.

Hence, Mehta asserted, the Central government cannot be legally sued in this matter. He also emphasized that the CBI cannot be the subject of an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, Mehta accused the West Bengal government of attempting to litigate the same issue in two separate cases before the Supreme Court. He argued that this aspect was concealed from the Court.

In response, Sibal referred to Section 4(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) to argue that the CBI is under the superintendence of the Central government. Therefore, he stated, the Central government can indeed be made a defendant in the current suit.

He further added that considering the CBI as an independent "statutory" authority solely because it falls under the DSPE Act would be erroneous.

Sibal further denied the Central government's accusation that the West Bengal government was engaging in multiple litigations on the same issue. He clarified that while one case involved an original suit (the present case), the other was an appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court order for a CBI probe into post-poll violence.

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along with advocates Shadan Farasat and Astha Sharma, also represented the West Bengal government (plaintiff) in today's proceedings.