The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts should not order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) solely based on letters received from private parties [State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal]. A Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan emphasized that entrusting an investigation to the CBI should only occur in exceptional cases, where the court is convinced that the State police cannot handle the case impartially.
While acknowledging the High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution to order a CBI investigation, the Bench stressed that such decisions must be backed by valid reasoning, specifically addressing concerns about the fairness of the State police’s investigation. The court clarified that relying solely on letters for such decisions is insufficient.
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside an April 19 ruling by the Calcutta High Court, which had affirmed a CBI investigation into allegations related to school appointments under the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA). The case involved accusations, originating from multiple letters, of illegal appointments by GTA officials during former chairperson Binay Tamang’s tenure from 2017 to 2019.
The Calcutta High Court’s initial April 9 order for a CBI probe, which had been upheld by a Division Bench, was challenged by the West Bengal government. The Supreme Court, in response, reiterated that High Courts should only direct CBI investigations in rare cases and only when justified by concrete reasons.
In this instance, the Supreme Court found no substantial explanation as to why the single judge had deemed the State police’s investigation unfair or biased, making a CBI probe unnecessary. Therefore, the court overturned both the single-judge and Division Bench orders and remanded the matter back to the single judge for reconsideration.
Senior Advocates AM Singhvi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, and others represented the State of West Bengal, while Senior Advocates Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Rauf Rahim, Menaka Guruswamy, and others represented the respondents.
