2021 · GS Paper 2 · Q11 · 15 marks

The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular state is being questioned by various States. However, the power of States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India.

In short

States may withdraw general consent to the CBI under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, but the power is not absolute: constitutional courts can order probes without it and earlier cases continue. A Constitution Bench held so in State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010).

Model answer

Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026

Introduction
Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 requires a State's consent before the CBI probes within it. Since 2018, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu (2023), Karnataka (2024) and others have withdrawn general consent, making the CBI a federal flashpoint.
Why States Question the CBI's Jurisdiction
•

Police is a State subject

State List Entry 2 and Union List Entry 80 require a State's consent, which Section 6 mirrors.

•

Executive control and targeting

The Supreme Court called the CBI a "caged parrot" in 2013, and in West Bengal v. Union of India (2024) it held a State's Article 131 suit maintainable, rejecting the CBI's claimed independence.

Why the State's Power to Withhold Consent Is Not Absolute
•

Court-ordered probes

In West Bengal v. CPDR (2010) a Constitution Bench allowed the Supreme Court and High Courts to order CBI probes without consent, as in RG Kar (2024).

•

Prospective withdrawal

Cases registered before withdrawal continue, case-specific consent remains possible, and the NIA can probe scheduled offences without any consent.

•

Federal balance

India is a "Union of States" (Article 1), and the federalism that S.R. Bommai (1994) made part of the basic structure protects State autonomy without letting consent shield crime.

Way Forward
•

New CBI law

Define its status and a list of federal offences, with time-bound consent decisions through the Inter-State Council.

•

Independence

Strengthen the Vineet Narain (1997) safeguards of fixed tenure and CVC oversight.

Conclusion
The consent rule protects State autonomy, but courts and prior cases keep it from becoming a veto over justice. An independent, legally grounded CBI would restore cooperative federalism.

This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.

Hand-drawn diagram: CBI Entry Into a State. CBI Entry Into a State. Diagram (tree): CBI Entry Into a State; With State consent; General consent; Case-specific consent; Without State consent; SC or HC direction; Pre-withdrawal cases
Diagram: CBI Entry Into a State

Practise this question

  1. 1Get the answer sheet

    Sized for this question.

  2. 2Write your answer

    Timed, by hand.

  3. 3Get it marked

    Your score and what to fix.

Share this questionWhatsAppTelegramXLinkedIn

This chapter in the exam

Regulatory & Quasi-Judicial Bodies5 questions

Asked in 5 of 14 sittings since 2013

2013
1
2014
1
2015
1
2016
1
2017
–
2018
–
2019
–
2020
–
2021
1
2022
–
2023
–
2024
–
2025
–
2026
–

All 5 questions, sorted by sub-topic, with model answers and practice.

Question from the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2021 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.

Ghissu

OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·