CBI transfer power under Articles 32 and 226 upheld for exceptional cases needing credible, independent investigation.

Constitutional courts have power under Articles 32 and 226 to direct transfer of an investigation to the CBI in appropriate cases, and that power is not curtailed by the State-consent requirement under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. In an exceptional scam involving large-scale public collections across several States, limited progress in tracing the money trail, and possible wider conspiratorial and regulatory issues, the court held that an independent investigation was necessary to ensure credibility, completeness, and public confidence. The petitions were allowed and the specified investigations were transferred to the CBI, while existing recovery and inquiry processes were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the constitutional courts have power to direct transfer of investigation to the CBI notwithstanding Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act; (ii) whether the facts of the scam justified transfer of the pending investigations to the CBI.

Issue (i): Whether the constitutional courts have power to direct transfer of investigation to the CBI notwithstanding Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.

Analysis: The constitutional power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 forms part of the basic structure and cannot be curtailed by a statutory restriction on the executive's power to require State consent for CBI investigation. The power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights includes the authority to order transfer of investigation in appropriate cases, and such exercise does not violate federalism or separation of powers.

Conclusion: The constitutional courts do have the power to direct transfer of investigation to the CBI, and Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act does not limit that power.

Issue (ii): Whether the facts of the scam justified transfer of the pending investigations to the CBI.

Analysis: The scam involved massive public collections across several States, possible inter-State and wider conspiratorial dimensions, limited progress in tracing the money trail, and possible involvement of influential persons and regulatory lapses. In such exceptional circumstances, an independent investigation was necessary to ensure credibility, completeness, and public confidence.

Conclusion: The facts justified transfer of the pending investigations to the CBI.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed and the specified investigations were directed to be transferred to the CBI, while existing recovery and inquiry processes were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional court may direct CBI investigation in an exceptional case where such intervention is necessary to enforce fundamental rights and maintain credible, effective investigation, and this power is not curtailed by the State-consent requirement applicable to the executive.

---