Clarity on the reach of anti-corruption enforcement emerged after the Supreme Court of India ruled that state police authorities are fully empowered to investigate and file chargesheets against central government employees accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The verdict settles a long-running jurisdictional dispute by holding that the Central Bureau of Investigation does not enjoy exclusive authority over such cases and that state-level bodies, including the Anti-Corruption Bureau, may proceed without prior approval from the federal agency.The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected arguments that offences allegedly committed by central government staff automatically fall within the CBI’s sole domain. The judges underscored that policing and criminal investigation are primarily state subjects under the constitutional framework, and that Parliament did not carve out a monopoly for any single agency when it enacted the PC Act.
At the heart of the ruling lies the interpretation of how concurrent powers operate when allegations involve public servants whose employer is the Union government. The court held that the PC Act creates a uniform offence regime applicable across jurisdictions and does not, by itself, shift investigative competence away from states. Where state police have territorial jurisdiction over the alleged acts, they may register cases, investigate, and submit final reports to competent courts, the bench said.
The judges also addressed concerns that parallel or overlapping probes could lead to conflict or harassment. Existing legal safeguards, including judicial oversight at the stage of cognisance and the possibility of transferring cases in appropriate circumstances, were cited as sufficient checks. The court noted that coordination between agencies can be achieved through established protocols without reading exclusivity into the statute.
The verdict arose from challenges questioning whether state anti-corruption units required the CBI’s consent before acting against central employees. Those challenges relied on earlier administrative practices and executive instructions that encouraged the CBI to handle cases with an inter-state or national dimension. The court clarified that such practices cannot override statutory powers conferred on state police by criminal law.
Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces the principle that investigative authority flows from law, not from institutional convention. By affirming the autonomy of state agencies, the court has recalibrated the balance between federal and state enforcement in corruption cases, particularly where alleged offences are localised even if the accused serves the Union.
For state governments, the judgment is expected to remove procedural uncertainty that had slowed or stalled probes pending inter-agency clearances. Anti-corruption units have argued that delays undermine deterrence and allow evidence to go cold. The court’s reasoning emphasises speed and accountability, stating that the purpose of the PC Act would be frustrated if jurisdictional doubts impeded lawful investigations.
At the same time, the bench was careful to distinguish between competence and prudence. It observed that the CBI remains a vital agency for cases that warrant a centralised probe due to scale, complexity, or cross-border elements. States may still seek the CBI’s involvement where circumstances justify it, and courts retain the power to direct such transfers to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
The decision also addresses anxieties among central employees about exposure to multiple authorities. The court reiterated that criminal procedure provides remedies against abuse, including the quashing of proceedings lacking legal basis and protection against double jeopardy. Uniform application of these safeguards, the judges said, preserves due process irrespective of the investigating agency.