Authored By:Tripurari Renuka
K V Ranga Reddy Law College
COURT NAME AND BENCH
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Division Bench — Justices C.T. Ravi Kumar and Rajesh Bindal.
DATE OF JUDGMENT
2 January 2025
PARTIES INVOLVED
Appellant: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Respondent(s): A. Satish Kumar & Ors. (Public servants working for Central Government/Undertaking)
FACTS OF THE CASE
FIRs were registered by CBI (through ACB, Hyderabad) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), against the respondents including A. Satish Kumar for alleged acceptance of bribes and corruption.
The alleged offences arose in districts of the (new) State of Andhra Pradesh (Kurnool and Anantapur), after bifurcation of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh.
The writ petitions filed by the respondents challenged the jurisdiction of CBI (and the Special Court in Hyderabad) to register FIRs and investigate/try offences under the PC Act
Arguing that:
- CBI lacked fresh consent from the new state government under the DSPE act.
- The Special CBI Court at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction post-bifurcation.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh accepted these arguments, quashed the FIRs and charge-sheets, and held that CBI lacked the required state-consent or fresh notification post-bifurcation.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the CBI (or its Special Court at Hyderabad) retained jurisdiction to investigate/try corruption offences under the PC Act committed after state bifurcation, in districts of the new Andhra Pradesh without fresh state consent or fresh notification of a Special Court.
- Whether prior general consent (obtained when the undivided Andhra Pradesh existed) and prior notification of Special Court survive the state-reorganisation (under Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014), as per principle of continuity of laws and notifications.
- Whether the lack of fresh consent/notification “vitiates the proceedings” i.e., makes the FIR, investigation, and trial void.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Applicants ‘submissions
CBI’s arguments (Appellant):
CBI contended that the earlier general consent granted by undivided Andhra Pradesh before bifurcation continues to remain valid under law and need not be repeated.
The notification for a Special Court (CBI Court, Hyderabad) issued before bifurcation, and the institutional setup under the 1963 Ministry of Home Affairs resolution (establishing CBI’s function) remain operative despite state division.
The fact that the accused are Central Government employees (or employees of Central undertakings), and offences are under a Central Act (PC Act), makes CBI’s power to investigate independent of state consent under DSPE Act, even if the employees are working within a State a principle supported by precedents like Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI.
Respondents ‘submissions
Respondents’ arguments:
The respondents argued that after bifurcation, the earlier arrangements (consent, Special Court jurisdiction) automatically lapsed and fresh consent was mandatory. Without fresh consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) and without a fresh notification under PC Act for Special Court, CBI lacked jurisdiction to register FIRs or try cases.
The Special Court at Hyderabad, located in another state, had no jurisdiction over offences committed in the new Andhra Pradesh.
Hence conducting investigation/trial through the CBI Court at Hyderabad (which now lies in a different State) for offences committed in Andhra Pradesh was legally impermissible after state-reorganisation.
Consequently, the FIRs and charge-sheets were without jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Brief Judgment Summary
The State, CBI v A Satish Kumar (2025)
The Supreme Court held that the CBI’s power to investigate did not lapse after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court ruled that the general consent earlier granted by the undivided State continued to remain valid in the newly formed State unless expressly withdrawn. Similarly, the notification establishing the Special CBI Court also remained operational until replaced by a competent authority.
The Court found that the High Court was wrong in quashing the FIRs and charge-sheets, and that technical objections about jurisdiction could not defeat anti-corruption investigations involving Central Government employees.
The Court restored the criminal proceedings: the relevant cases from FIR Nos. 10A/2017 and RC-22(A)/2017 (CBI, Hyderabad) were ordered to be restored before the Special Court for CBI Cases at Kurnool (the appropriate court) for trial.
FINAL DECISION
Appeal allowed.
The earlier High Court order quashing the FIRs and charge-sheets is set aside.
Criminal Proceedings restored and
The trial before the Special Court for CBI Cases at Kurnool is to proceed.
LEGAL REASONING/RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court emphasised that procedural rules exist to advance justice rather than defeat it. The Court reasoned that the High Court had dismissed the accused’s application solely on a technical delay without evaluating whether sufficient cause existed. According to the Supreme Court, when delay occurs in filing an application or appeal, the court must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach—especially in criminal matters where personal liberty is at stake. The Court reiterated that denying a party the chance to present their case merely due to a procedural lapse violates the principles of natural justice.
The Court also stressed that adjudication must prioritise the merits over technicalities. Condonation of delay should not be refused where the explanation is reasonable, bona fide, and free from negligence. Since the High Court failed to apply this settled principle and did not consider the circumstances leading to delay, its order was unsustainable. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the matter must be remanded so the High Court can properly examine the reasons for delay and decide the rights of the parties on the substance of the case.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms that when dealing with corruption offences committed by Central Government employees under a Central statute, the investigative and prosecutorial powers of CBI are not negated by state-level reorganisations provided prior valid consent/notifications existed. The judgment clarifies that the continuity of law principle preserves CBI’s jurisdiction post-state bifurcation, preventing procedural loopholes from hampering anti-corruption efforts.
OBSERVATIONS
This case is significant in reinforcing the reach of central investigative agencies in the context of federal restructuring. It ensures that reorganisation of states cannot inadvertently shield corrupt public servants simply by exploiting technicalities of consent or jurisdiction.
The judgment may serve as a precedent for similar cases elsewhere: where state reorganisation or territorial changes occur, pending or prospective corruption matters should not automatically stand vitiated.
From a policy perspective, it strengthens the hand of central law-enforcement agencies, reducing the risk that local/state-level administrative changes could derailed central oversight over corruption.
