The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition seeking to settle the dispute on who would have the jurisdiction to investigate erroneous officers of the Union Government, batted for a balance approach, reasoning that different situations may require different approaches.

The issues in the Writ Petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) with the state of Tamil Nadu as the Respondent, arose after an ED officer was allegedly caught receiving a bribe amounting to several lakhs by Tamil Nadu's Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. On March 20 this year, the Supreme Court had granted him bail.

A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan today agreed to list the Writ Petition for a detailed hearing to decide who would have the power, between central investigative agencies and state agencies, to investigate cases involving Union Government officers. As a preliminary observation, Justice Kant said, "In a federal structure, the ultimate interpretation will have to be to ensure that each component retains its identity."

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for Tamil Nadu, recounted that in the previous hearing, the Court had agreed to "consider the larger issue". He submitted that certain Judgments permit the state Anti-Corruption Bureaus to investigate if an officer of the Union is caught in their state, without citing any specific Judgments.

Considering a hypothetical situation where a state government decides to arbitrarily arrest Union Government officers, Justice Surya Kant said, "This may create a problem, a Constitutional crisis." At the same time, he added, there may be a central government officer whose conduct is "so unwanted" that the state police is compelled to intervene immediately.

"To say that state police will always have the power is a dangerous weapon. To say that the state police will never have the power may not also be desirable in the interest of rule of law and in the larger public interest," Justice Kant said, cautioning against granting exclusive power to investigate in such cases and implying that there may be several considerations before the Court before settling the issue.

When the Counsel for the accused made submissions, Amit Anand Tiwari submitted, "As far as the accused is concerned, they have no right to choose which investigative agency should conduct (investigation)." To this, Justice Kant said an accused has a right to fair trial, and it should not matter to them which investigative agency handles their case.

The Court did not hold extensive discussion on the case of the arrested ED officer, Ankit Tiwari, noting, "The accused has not come before us, it is the Union of India versus state." Yet, on the request of ED's counsel Advocate Shivam Singh, the Court extended his interim bail in view of the investigation having been over.

On the accused ED officer, the Court dispensed with the condition that he shall remain in Tamil Nadu, subjecting the modification to the condition that he appears before the Trial Court through video conferencing, unless trial court requires his presence "for some effective hearing."

Amit Anand Tiwari commented, "Any other accused would not have even got bail. He was caught red-handed taking money," referring to the accused allegedly having been caught on his car's dashboard camera receiving money.

Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu [W.P.(Crl.) No. 23/2024]

Justice Surya KantJustice Ujjal BhuyanEnforcement Directorate

Tushar Kohli