State consent for CBI jurisdiction upheld on substantial compliance with executive-form requirements under constitutional law.

Valid consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act can be inferred without any prescribed form, and substantial compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution is sufficient for executive action. The Supreme Court found that the Central notification under Section 3 and the extension order under Section 5 were in place, and that the 5 February 1957 State communication adequately showed consent by the competent authority. The Court distinguished cases involving only file notings or an unproven decision, and concluded that the State had validly consented. The resulting prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation was therefore not without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State of Madhya Pradesh had validly consented under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to the exercise of powers and jurisdiction by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State, and whether non-compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India invalidated that consent.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires a Central Government notification under Section 3, an order extending powers under Section 5, and State consent under Section 6 before the Delhi Special Police Establishment can operate in a State. The Court found that the first two requirements had been satisfied. On the third, it examined the 5 February 1957 communication from the State Government and held that the Act does not prescribe any particular form for consent. Referring to the settled interpretation of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the Court reiterated that compliance with the mode of expression of executive action is directory and that substantial compliance is sufficient. The Court distinguished cases where there was only a file noting or where the alleged decision was not shown to have been taken by the competent authority, and held that the present record contained sufficient particulars to show that the State Government had consented.

Conclusion: The consent under Section 6 was valid, Article 166 was substantially complied with, and the prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation was not without jurisdiction.

---