Can CBI probe anyone other than Central Govt employees without specific order, question raised in HC

A pivotal jurisdictional question — whether the CBI, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, can investigate anyone other than Central Government employees without a specific order — came up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court today during the hearing of DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar’s plea challenging a corruption probe initiated by the agency.

Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Yashvir Singh Rathore, senior advocate Randeep Singh Rai, along with counsel Sangram Singh Saron and Arjun Singh Rai, argued that Section 5 of the DSPE Act limited the agency’s jurisdiction in Chandigarh strictly to Central Government employees.

Rai submitted that Section 5(1) expressly required a specific order of the Central government extending DSPE powers to any area. “You will not jump into every jurisdiction. You will jump in where the Central government empowers you”.

Rai asserted the only existing direction empowered the CBI to act against Central Government employees posted in Chandigarh, not state officers. Any broader reading — especially allowing the CBI to investigate Punjab and Haryana officers merely because their capital was Chandigarh — would effectively convert the agency into a “super-power vigilance bureau for two states”, something “not envisaged” by the statute.

Rai asserted that the allegations against Bhullar originated entirely in Punjab and bore no jurisdictional nexus with Chandigarh, where the trap was allegedly laid.

Taking a note of the submissions, the Bench asked the Central Government to produce the “relevant order issued under Section 5/5.1 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946”, before proceeding further.

A related issued that caught the Bench’s attention during the hearing was whether the Constitution contained a specific provision for a Union Territory that served as the capital of two states. Chief Justice Nagu remarked there “probably is some provision”, given how the Constitution dealt with High Court appointments in such cases.

Rai submitted Union Territories were notified under the Constitution, but Chandigarh was excluded from the list under Article 240, which dealt with administration of Union Territories. Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain confirmed that the issue had previously arisen in service matters. “For all purposes, it is a Union Territory… neither in Punjab nor in Haryana,” he argued.

Jain further informed the court of a pending proposal to bring Chandigarh under Article 240, which would allow the President — not Parliament — to amend laws applicable to the Union Territory, simplifying administrative functioning. “If it goes under 240, Government of India will get the power… and decisions for Chandigarh will be further streamlined,” he stated.

Bhullar seeks quashing of the FIR registered on October 16 registered by the CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Among other things, he contended that the CBI, functioning under the DSPE Act, had no authority to register or investigate offences in Punjab without a Section 3 notification specifying offences, a Section 5 order extending DSPE jurisdiction to Punjab, or Punjab’s consent under Section 6.