TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the consent granted for CBI investigation; (ii) Whether consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is equivalent to sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) Whether the State Government was required to apply its mind before granting consent and whether such mind was applied in the present case.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the consent granted for CBI investigation.
Analysis: The challenge to the State's consent failed because the petitioner could not show any legal injury arising from the consent. The reference to the petitioner in the underlying material was only incidental, and the order was directed to investigation of alleged corruption involving another person and other officials. The existence of Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was also noted, but it did not confer standing on the petitioner to question the State's consent under Section 6.
Conclusion: The petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the consent order.
Issue (ii): Whether consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is equivalent to sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was held to be materially different from sanction under Section 17A or Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Consent under the DSPE Act is only permission for the CBI to exercise jurisdiction in the State, whereas sanction provisions concern a threshold protection requiring a more searching consideration before prosecution. Authorities dealing with sanction for prosecution were therefore held inapplicable.
Conclusion: Consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is not equivalent to sanction under the other provisions invoked.
Issue (iii): Whether the State Government was required to apply its mind before granting consent and whether such mind was applied in the present case.
Analysis: The grant of consent was treated as an administrative decision resting on subjective satisfaction rather than a quasi-judicial sanction. Even assuming some level of application of mind was necessary, the material before the State included the Enforcement Directorate's communication, the reported findings of investigation, and the Advocate General's opinion. The order itself reflected the basis on which the State decided that the CBI should investigate the matter.
Conclusion: The State Government had applied its mind sufficiently and the consent could not be said to be vitiated.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the State's consent for CBI investigation was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is only permission to exercise investigative jurisdiction and is distinct from statutory sanction for prosecution; it is an administrative decision based on subjective satisfaction, and a person against whom no legal right is infringed lacks standing to challenge it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
