The Doctrine of Continuing Consent: Extended Jurisdiction of CBI Over Central Government Employees

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar (2025 INSC 11) addressed a crucial question related to the ambit of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) authority, especially after the bifurcation of a State under a Reorganisation Act. The case revolved around whether the CBI could continue to investigate and conduct trials for offenses allegedly committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a newly formed State, based on a general consent originally accorded by the erstwhile undivided State before bifurcation.

This dispute emerged when the High Court quashed two FIRs filed against Central Government employees for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), holding that the CBI lacked jurisdiction in the newly formed State due to the absence of explicit consent post-bifurcation. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the effect of continuing general consent granted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (“DSPE Act”) and the corresponding application of prior notifications and government orders after a State’s reorganisation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order that had quashed the FIRs and the subsequent proceedings. Noting that the central government employees fell within the purview of a pre-existing general consent to CBI investigation, the Court underscored that the applicable notifications, government orders, and circulars remain valid and continue to operate in the successor States post-bifurcation unless they are explicitly repealed, amended, or superseded. Consequently, it held that the CBI had the authority to register FIRs and complete the investigation. The Court further reinforced that a loyal application of the circulars and government orders would avert any jurisdictional vacuum that might otherwise embolden corrupt practices to go unchecked.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021) 2 SCC 525:

   This case clarified that once an offense is committed within the geographical limits of union territories or states where CBI has lawful grounds to investigate, the requirement of specific consent does not arise merely because certain aspects of the investigation might transcend to another State. The Supreme Court relied on this principle to show that pre-existing consent remains a solid basis for CBI’s jurisdiction in the reorganized States, barring explicit withdrawal or modification by the successor States.

2. Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar (2020 SCC OnLine SC 395):

   Here, the Court reiterated that the DSPE Act extends to the entire territory of India, and the CBI can validly investigate offenses committed by Central Government employees without specific consent from all States, especially when the primary aspects of the offense occur in a union territory or in an area that remains covered by a continuing general consent.

3. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and Ors. v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 689:

   The Court emphasized that laws (including government orders, circulars, and notifications) applicable to an undivided State continue to apply in successor States post-bifurcation unless they are explicitly repealed or amended. The Supreme Court relied on this jurisprudential foundation to rule that the general consent for CBI investigations under DSPE Act continues in the reorganized States.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests upon three primary pillars:

1. Continuity of Legal Instruments Post-Bifurcation:

   The Court analyzed Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 and the associated Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 dated 26.05.2014. It concluded that all laws, including government notifications or orders granting general consent to the CBI, continue to remain in force for the newly constituted States unless repealed or amended. Thus, G.O. Ms. No.88 dated 07.08.2012—by which the Special Court for CBI at Hyderabad was conferred jurisdiction over Rayalaseema districts—was deemed to retain its legal force even after the creation of the new State, in the absence of explicit repeal or amendment.

2. Scope and Application of “General Consent” Under the DSPE Act:

   Applying Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, the Court clarified that general consent once extended remains operative, absent a clear withdrawal by the successor State. Consequently, CBI officers can investigate offenses involving Central Government employees acting under a central enactment, even if part of the cause of action arises in a State carved out post-bifurcation.

3. Jurisdiction Over Central Government Employees:

   Because the accused were employed with the Central Government or central undertakings, the investigation of offenses under the PC Act—a central enactment—does not hinge solely on the express consent of the newly formed State. The Court also noted that the original notifications from the erstwhile State remained valid. An opposite reading would result in legal impediments allowing corruption to go unchecked in transitional territories post-bifurcation.

C. Impact

This judgment has significant ramifications for ongoing and future cases, particularly in situations where a State has undergone reorganisation:

• Validation of Continuity: All laws, government orders, and circulars which enjoyed the force of law before bifurcation continue to be effective unless explicitly repealed, ensuring immediate stability in the investigation and prosecution of offenses.
• Increased Certainty in Criminal Investigations: Central investigating agencies, like the CBI, need not fear sudden jurisdictional voids or the necessity of repeatedly seeking fresh consent. This removes a potential loophole that might have been exploited by individuals accused of corruption.
• Clear Guidance for States and Investigating Authorities: Reiterating the principle from earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Court offers a thorough precedent for any analogous reorganisation scenarios in the future.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. State Reorganisation:

   A legislative process wherein one state is bifurcated (or reorganized) into two or more successor states. Post-bifurcation, the laws that governed the original state continue to apply to each successor state unless changed by the relevant legislative authority.

2. General Consent under the DSPE Act:

   This concept allows the CBI (a central agency) to investigate specific categories of offenses without having to seek case-by-case permission from the respective State Government. Once granted, it remains in force unless explicitly withdrawn.

3. Central vs. State Jurisdiction:

   While policing is ordinarily a State subject, the DSPE Act empowers the CBI to investigate certain offenses. The existence of “general consent” under Section 6 eliminates the barrier of seeking fresh approval for each new case.

4. Special Court under the PC Act:

   An exclusive court meant to try offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such a court is often designated via state or central notifications, as mandated by Section 4 of the PC Act, to expedite trials involving corruption charges.

Conclusion

In The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar (2025 INSC 11), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that general consent and relevant notifications survive a State’s bifurcation. By setting aside the High Court’s order quashing the FIRs and subsequent proceedings, the Court prevented the creation of a jurisdictional gap that might impede the investigation of corruption offenses, especially against Central Government employees. Consequently, the doctrine of continuing consent stands firmly as a linchpin principle, preserving the investigating capacities of agencies like the CBI even in newly reconstituted territories.

This ruling thus serves as both a guiding precedent and a cautionary reminder that reorganisation does not negate the application of existing laws. Hence, courts, investigators, and litigants across India can rely on this decision whenever parallel issues of jurisdiction or authority crop up in the wake of state reorganisation.