State of W.B. v. CPDR Flashcards
State of WB v. CPDR
- Bench Strength
- Year of Decision
5 Judge Bench (D.K. Jain)
2010
State of WB v. CPDR
Facts:
Members of a political party in W.B. engaged in mob violence resulting in damage to property and several casualties.
Complaint filed by victim of attack who was also a witness and an FIR was lodged stating several cognizable offences.
DGP of WB issued an order that the investigation was to be by the CID
Investigation by the police was not proceeding in a proper pace and manner.
CPDR filed a writ petition under Art. 226 seeking direction that the investigation be handed over to the CBI.
High Court hands over the investigation to the CBI without consent of the state government. The rationale of the High Court is:
- police is being found to not act in a manner free of influence from the political party.
- Even if the police does in fact act fairly, the investigation will anyway be tainted with the suspicion of bias.
State Government challenged the judgment by way of SLP.
State of WB v. CPDR
Main Issue
Whether the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Arts. 32 and 226, direct investigation of a case by the CBI into allegedly offences committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a state, without the consent of the State Government?
State of WB v. CPDR
Why was the reference order passed?
The reference to a larger bench was passed on the basis that the question of law involved “is of great public importance and frequently coming before the courts” and is therefore necessary to be settled by a larger bench.
The referral order noted the submissions of the Counsel that the issue was covered by the decisions in:
- Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurudasmal (5 Judges - 1970)
Challenge to the jurisdiction of the DSPE to investigate an income tax offence case registered in Maharashtra State. However, in that case an affidavit was filed by the Govt. of Maharashtra giving consent for the investigation.
The word “State” in Entry 80 of List I has been construed to include “Union Territory” and members of the police force belonging to the Union Territory can have their powers and jurisdiction extended to another State “provided the Government of that state consents.”
Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI
(3 Judges - 1994)
The issue was whether the State Government’s consent for CBI to investigate offences allegedly committed within the state could be retrospectively withdrawn. The Court held that retrospective withdrawal of consent would not be possible.
Reiterates the principle in Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurudasmal.
The court further held that Parliament had legislative competence for extension of powers and jurisdiction of the CBI belonging to Delhi to any other State.
State of WB v. CPDR
Petitioner’s contentions
- Reading of Entry 80 List I, Entries 2 and 2A of List 2 makes it clear that if Parliament passes a law authorizing police of one state to investigate an offence committed in another state without the consent of the government of the latter state, it would be an invalid law. This is based on the federal principle.
- If Parliament cannot legislate, the Courts cannot also do so. This is based on the principle of separation of powers.
- The exercise of power of the SC under Art. 142 to do substantial justice cannot ignore express constitutional / statutory provisions.
- The HC’s jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) has territorial limits. The HC cannot issue directions to authorities situated outside its territorial jurisdiction.
- For Art. 226(2) to apply, there must be some nexus between the cause of action arising within the state and authority situated outside the state. The CBI, being a rank outsider unconnected to the incident in W.B., cannot be directed to take up investigation of the case.
State of WB v. CPDR
Respondent’s contentions
- The premise that restrictions placed on Parliament via Entry 80 List I or Sections 6 of the DSPEA also applies to courts is erroneous. Such restrictions do not apply to exercise of powers by the courts under Arts. 32 and 226.
- There is no violation of the federal principle because the federal structure itself envisages the duty of the Courts to:
- uphold constitutional values
- enforce constitutional limitations. - Since judicial review is part of the basic structure, no inferential limits may be drawn upon its exercise by analogy with legislative competence.
State of WB v. CPDR
Findings
- In case of direct and irreconcilable conflict between an entry in List I and an entry in List II, the power of the Parliament to legislate on the field will supersede.
- Similarly, in case of direct and irreconcilable conflict between an entry in List II and an entry in List III, the power of Parliament under List III will prevail.
- Conclusions (1) and (2) above flow from:
- the federal supremacy principle that follows from he the non-obstante clause in Art. 246(1) and the “subject to” wording in Arts. 246(2) and 246(3). - The legislative power of the Union to provide for the regular police force of one State to exercise power and jurisdiction in an area within another State can only be exercised with the consent of the government of the latter State. This follows from a combined reading of:
- Entry 39, List I, GoI Act 1935
- Entry 2A and 80, List I, VII Schedule, CoI
- Entry 2, List II, VII Schedule, COI - A constitutional court is the custodian of the federal structure. Therefore invocation of the federal principle to curb the exercise of judicial powers is incorrect.
- In India, supremacy of the Constitution and separation of powers constitute basic features of the Constitution. (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain)
- However, the constitution does not envisage a rigid and strict separation of powers. It has to be reinvented in modern times. (State of UP. v. Jeet S. Bisht).
It cannot abridge or oust the power of judicial review, which itself forms part of the basic structure and stands on a different pedestal especially where fundamental rights are sought to be violated. Judicial review of laws is embedded in the Constitution by virtue of Arts. 32 and 226 r/w. Art. 13. - Constitution is a living document that must interpreted broadly and liberally, having regard to the changed circumstances or the needs of the time and polity.
- Fundamental rights in Part III are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any constitutional or statutory provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such FRs would violate the basic structure doctrine. The “actual effect and impact” of the law on the FRs must be taken into account in deciding whether or not it destroys the basic structure.
- Art, 21 takes into its fold not only rights of an accused but also rights of the victim. In certain cases, even witnesses may seek for and shall be granted protection by the state.
- The State has:
a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen
- providing for fair and impartial investigation
-against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence
- which may include its own officers.
12.
Can FRs be abridged or abrogated by constitutional amendments?
State of WB v. CPDR
No. Fundamental rights in Part III are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any constitutional or statutory provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such FRs would violate the basic structure doctrine.
What is the test to determine if a law impacting FRs violates the basic structure of the constitution?
State of WB v. CPDR
The “actual effect and impact” of the law on the FRs must be taken into account in deciding whether or not it destroys the basic structure.
What is the scope of Art. 21 vis a vis the criminal justice system? Who all are conferred rights under Art. 21?
State of WB v. CPDR
Art. 21 confers rights not only on the accused but also on the victims. In exceptional cases, even witnesses may seek for and shall be granted protection by the state.
What is the responsibility of the State with respect to the victims of the criminal justice system?
State of WB v. CPDR
The State has:
a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen
- providing for fair and impartial investigation
-against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence
- which may include its own officers.
Can a legislation curtail the of the constitutional courts with regard to the enforcement of FRs? State reasons.
(or) What is the justification for judicial review?
State of WB v. CPDR
No. The jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts and the SC under Arts. 226 and 32 are integral part of the basic structure of the constitution.
No act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the constitutional courts with regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Such a power is essential to give practicable content to the objectives embodied in Part II and other parts of the Constitution.
In a federal constitution, distribution of legislative powers between the Center and the State carries with it limitation of legislative powers, and this requires an independent authority from the legislatures to ascertain whether the limitations are transgressed. Judicial review gives effect to the distribution of powers and also shows any transgressions in relation to the same.
Judicial review is justified by “principles of separation of powers, rule or law and the principle of constitutionality”.
As per the scheme of the Constitution, who are the final interpreters and guardians of the constitution? How are these guardians empowered?
State of WB v. CPDR
As per the constitutional scheme, the High Courts and the Supreme Court are the final interpreters and guardians of the constitution.
The Constitution provides a remedy to approach the constitutional courts under Arts. 32 and 226 whenever there is an attempted violation of the constitution..
Can a direction by the SC or the HCs under Art. 226 or 32 to enforce the rule of law said to be violative of the federal structure?
State of WB v. CPDR
No. The Constitution takes care to protect the federal structure by ensuring that Courts act as guardians and interpreters of the Constitution.
The Constitution provides a remedy under Arts. 32 and 226 whenever there is an attempted violation.
In such circumstances, a direction by the SC or the SCs under Arts. 32 or 226 to enforce the rule of law cannot be said to violate the federal structure.
