SC: HIGH COURTS MUST NOT ROUTINELY ORDER CBI PROBES ON VAGUE ALLEGATIONS:

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that unsubstantiated and bald allegations regarding the incompetence of local police are not sufficient grounds for transferring a case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that had transferred an investigation from the local police to the CBI. The High Court had acted upon the complainant’s unverified claim that the local police were incapable of conducting the investigation properly.

In Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Supreme Court held that the authority to transfer investigations to the CBI should be exercised sparingly and only in extraordinary situations — “where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.” The Court further stressed, “The High Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in cases where material prima facie discloses something calling for an investigation by CBI and it should not be done in a routine manner or on the basis of some vague allegations. The ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion.”

In the current case, an FIR was registered against the appellant for allegedly impersonating an Intelligence Bureau officer and extorting Rs.1.49 crore from the complainant, identified as respondent no. 3. The complainant sought the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, claiming collusion between the appellant and Haryana police. The High Court accepted this request and ordered the transfer.

However, while overturning the High Court’s decision, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia highlighted that the transfer was predicated solely on vague allegations — namely, the appellant’s acquaintance with the police — and lacked any substantiating evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the investigation was already being carried out by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and that the complainant had failed to demonstrate any bias or incompetence on the part of the local police.

“After going through the records of the case, we are of the view that the present case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High Court,” the bench stated.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed.