Chandigarh: The legal battle over the Central Bureau of Investigation’s authority to probe corruption cases in Punjab intensified on Wednesday, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court examining whether the CBI in Chandigarh has jurisdiction to investigate cases involving Punjab government officials.
The issue came to the fore after suspended DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar, a 2009-batch IPS officer of Punjab cadre, moved the High Court challenging the agency’s power to register and investigate cases against him.
High Court Seeks Centre’s Authorization Granting CBI Jurisdiction in Chandigarh
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathore directed the Central government to produce the authorization issued under Section 5(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, which empowers the CBI to investigate cases within Chandigarh.
The Court ordered the Union government to submit the relevant documents when the matter is taken up again in the first week of December.
Punjab Govt Opposes CBI Probe, Says Case Should Go to Vigilance Bureau
In a notable development, the Punjab government supported the petitioner DIG Bhullar, arguing that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The State’s counsel submitted that the CBI should have forwarded the corruption complaint to the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB), which is the competent authority to probe such cases –
“He is to be punished, but in accordance with the law… the law should take its own course. But this is a very important legal question,” the Punjab counsel argued.
The government emphasized that CBI’s jurisdiction was allegedly created deliberately, bypassing the State’s authority, despite Punjab having withdrawn general consent for CBI investigations in 2020.
CBI Arrested Bhullar in Bribery and DA Cases; Huge Cash Recovered in Chandigarh
DIG Bhullar, suspended Punjab-cadre IPS officer of the Ropar Range, was arrested in October by the CBI in –
- A bribery case involving alleged demand and acceptance of ₹8 lakh from a businessman through an associate
- A disproportionate assets (DA) case
During searches, the CBI recovered –
- ₹7.5 crore in cash
- Documents linked to over 50 immovable properties
- Other incriminating materials
The agency argued that Bhullar’s arrest and searches were valid as the alleged bribe was accepted within Chandigarh, automatically giving CBI jurisdiction in the Union Territory.
Bhullar: Punjab Withdrawn Consent, CBI Cannot Investigate Punjab Officers
Represented by Senior Advocate Randeep Singh Rai, Bhullar argued that –
- Punjab withdrew general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act in 2020.
- The complaint was related to Punjab, not Chandigarh.
- Acceptance of money in Chandigarh does not justify altering jurisdiction.
Rai stated –
“The alleged demand originated in Punjab… the complaint should not have been entertained by the CBI.”
He further argued that CBI in Chandigarh has authorization only for Central government employees, not State officers, and extending it to all public servants would effectively make it a “vigilance bureau for both Punjab and Haryana.”
Punjab Government: CBI Created Jurisdiction to Trap Bhullar
The Punjab government echoed these concerns. The State counsel argued – “This was done purposely, deliberately to create jurisdiction of Chandigarh in a mischievous manner.”
Punjab maintained that if any specific consent was required, the CBI should have sought it or transferred the case to the State Vigilance Bureau.
Chief Justice Nagu questioned the State’s insistence, asking – “Why are you so particular about these things?”
The State, however, reiterated that the issue involved an important legal question on CBI’s jurisdiction.
CBI Counters: Acceptance and Recoveries in Chandigarh Give Us Authority
CBI’s Special Public Prosecutors Akashdeep Singh and Ravi Kamal Gupta argued –
- Bribe acceptance occurred in Chandigarh.
- Massive recoveries were made in Chandigarh.
- Therefore, the agency has full jurisdiction in the UT.
- The challan is due to be filed in December.
Dual FIR Controversy Raised in Court
Bhullar also challenged the DA case, arguing that –
- Punjab Vigilance registered a similar FIR hours before the CBI FIR.
- Two FIRs for the same cause of action are illegal.
- His arrest was “illegal” with “no grounds of arrest.”
Matter Listed for December 4; Case Marked to Division Bench by Special Order
The case will be taken up again on December 4.
Interestingly, Bhullar’s petitions were supposed to be heard by a single-judge bench, but Chief Justice Nagu clarified that they were placed before the Division Bench on specific orders.
