CBI not a police force, can’t probe or arrest: Gauhati HC Fate of 2G, Guj Riots, Coalgate Cases Unsure

New Delhi: In a startling decision which has ramifications for sensitive cases, the Gauhati high court has ruled that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is legally not a police force and stripped off its powers to investigate crimes, arrest suspects and file chargesheets.      The ministry of home affairs (MHA) by a resolution dated April 1, 1963, had constituted the CBI as a police force under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. The CBI had drawn its powers to investigate cases from the DSPE Act.      A division bench of HC comprising Justices I A Ansari and Indira Shah on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the DSPE Act but held that "the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a 'police force' constituted under the DSPE Act."      Unless this ruling is reviewed and amended by a higher court, the CBI will not function as a police force and be able to proceed—in fact, not even file FIRs—in high-profile cases like Coalgate, 2G spectrum scam and those related to the Gujarat riots.      In these cases, the agency was directed by the Supreme Court to investigate and report to it.  'POWER LIMITED TO UTS'      Gauhati HC says CBI cannot be treated as a police force constituted under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. (MHA set up CBI under the act by a resolution on April 1, 1963). This means the very existence of CBI rejected      Says CBI does not have power to investigate cases, file FIRs. This would negate charge-sheets filed in 2G spectrum scam, Coalgate & cases related to Gujarat riots      Also says DSPE Act applicable only in Union Territories. So, any police force set up under Act can investigate crimes only in UTsSleuths expect govt to oppose order      The CBI will reportedly study the Gauhati HC order before taking a legal opinion, though it "expects" the Centre to oppose the order. Explaining its wide ambit, CBI officials say though the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, gives the agency powers to probe offences in Union territories, its jurisdiction is conditionally extended to all states and even the railways. P 10 HC quashes 1963 MHA resolution forming CBI      Once the cover of the law under DSPE Act is taken away, the very existence of the CBI has come to a naught. A worried Centre is preparing to rush to the SC on Friday to appeal against the HC judgment.      "We hereby also set aside and quash the impugned (under challenge) Resolution dated April 1, 1963, whereby the CBI has been constituted," the HC said.      Interestingly, the HC also limited the application of DSPE Act only to Union Territories. This means, even if a new police force was set up validly as per the HC's logic, its power to investigate crimes would remain confined to the UTs.      The bench said: "A careful reading of the preamble to the DSPE Act, 1946, would make it evident that the DSPE Act, 1946, has been made for the Union Territories. This legislative power cannot be exercised by Parliament except under Article 246(4) of the Constitution, which enables Parliament to enact laws on subjects covered by List-II (State List), in respect of Union Territories."      Allowing a writ petition filed by one Navendra Kumar, the bench quashed the chargesheet filed against him by the CBI but said that the alleged offence could be investigated afresh by the regular state police. As a triggering effect, this judgment would render all chargesheets filed by the CBI to date invalid.      The HC had on January 20 this year directed the CBI to produce the records relating to the creation of the CBI. After scrutinizing the records, the HC said that the 1963 MHA Resolution creating the CBI under the DSPE Act did not even receive the President's assent.      "Hence, strictly speaking, the Resolution in question cannot even be termed as the decision of the government of India. That apart, it is apparent from the records that the CBI is a newly constituted body and not the same as DSPE," said Justice Ansari, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.