Latest Politics News

After Andhra, Bengal bar CBI, FM Jaitley says states not sovereign in corruption cases

Published

8 years ago

November 17, 2018

After Andhra, Bengal bar CBI, FM Jaitley says states not sovereign in corruption cases

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Amid the escalating Centre-state clash with Mamata Banerjee government in Bengal joining Chandrababu Naidu government of Andhra Pradesh (AP) in withdrawing general consent given to the CBI to investigate any case in the state, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today (Saturday, Nov 17) hit back saying, “there’s no sovereignty of any state in the matter of corruption. Only those that have a lot to hide take the step of not letting the CBI come to the state.’’

Jaitley, who was in Bhopal to release the BJP’s manifesto for the assembly elections, alleged that the move in the case of Andhra Pradesh was motivated by the fear of what is likely to happen than by any particular case. Alleging that the top leadership of Trinamool Congress was involved in scams, he said the Sharda and Narada scams can’t be wiped out by merely saying we will keep away the CBI.

This, however, was disingenuous: the bar on CBI does not apply to cases already being investigated by it.

Earlier, Mamata Banerjee backed Naidu’s step and, addressing Trinamool Congress (TMC) workers, said, “We will also do the same in our state. We will cross-check the laws. They (the BJP) are giving instructions to agencies from their party offices. From CBI to RBI, they have turned institutions into disasters.”

AAP leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in a tweet, said: “Chandrababuji has done the right thing. Modi is misusing the CBI and Income Tax department…”

There was no immediate comment from the CBI but a former officer of the agency, who handed policy matters, said “withdrawal of consent simply means that CBI officers will lose all powers of a police officer as soon as they enter the state unless the state government has allowed them,” according to a report in The Indian Express (IE).

The BJP reacted angrily to Naidu’s move, saying Opposition parties have formed a “grand alliance of most corrupt parties to protect their interests”. Calling it a “clear malafide exercise of power”, BJP MP and its national spokesperson GVL Narasimha Rao told reporters: “A nervous and completely rattled Naidu is trying to save his government.”

The Andhra Pradesh government order comes at a time when Chandrababu Naidu is trying to rally non-BJP parties for an alliance in the run-up to the 2019 state and Lok Sabha elections.

Naidu has accused the BJP of conspiring with Andhra Pradesh Opposition leader YS Jagan Mohan Reddy to topple his government by using the CBI and Income Tax department. The I-T department had recently searched premises allegedly linked to TDP MP C M Ramesh.

As reported earlier, AP Home Department GO number 176, issued on November 8 by Principal Secretary A R Anuradha, stated: “In exercise of power conferred by Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act No 25 of 1946), Government hereby withdraws the general consent accorded in GO No 109 Home (SC.A) Department dated August 3, 2018 to all members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise the powers and jurisdiction under the said Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh.’’

The CBI was established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DPSE) Act. An official of the Home Department l said that while Section 5 of the Act gives powers to the CBI over all areas in the country, Section 6 states that without the consent of the state concerned, it cannot enter that state’s jurisdiction.

However, the Supreme Court and high courts can ask the CBI to probe a crime in a particular state even if the state is not keen to let the agency in. The CBI, in case it considers necessary, can approach the SC and HCs for permission to take up cases or extend their investigation to a state which may wish to declare it to be out-of-bounds for the agency.

Also, the moves by AP and West Bengal governments will not affect ongoing investigations, filing of chargesheets and conduct of trials. Sources in the AP government conceded that the agency could continue to investigate and carry out raids in cases in which it has already obtained consent from the state government.

At present, no major CBI case is being investigated in Andhra Pradesh. The cases of meat exporter Moin Qureshi and businessman Sana Sathish Babu are registered in New Delhi. There is ambiguity, however, on whether the agency can carry out a search in the state in connection with an old case without the consent of the state government.

The Delhi High Court order on October 11, 2018 makes it clear that the agency can probe anyone in a state that has withdrawn “general consent” if the case is not registered in that state. The order came on a case of corruption in Chhattisgarh. The court ordered that CBI could probe the case without prior consent of Chhattisgarh government since the case was registered in Delhi.

This is not the first time that a state government has revoked “general consent” for CBI probes, pointed out media reports.

On an earlier occasion, Sikkim had withdrawn the “consent” the CBI is required to take as per Section 6 of the DSPE Act.

In 1998, the Janata Dal-led government of J H Patel in Karnataka had similarly withdrawn general consent to CBI. When the S M Krishna-led Congress government took over the reins of power in 1999, it did not feel the need to revoke Patel’s order. Leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, was then Home Minister of Karnataka.

“It wasn’t renewed for eight years. The CBI had to virtually close down its office,” recalled an officer who was with the CBI then, said the IE report. The officer told IE that the agency had to seek permission of the state government for every case and every search, making it difficult to carry out surprise searches, or register a case not agreeable to the state government.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Up Next

Congress chief Rahul Gandhi challenges PM Modi to debate on Rafale deal

Don't Miss

Congress fields Manvendra Singh against Vasundhara Raje in Jhalrapatan

India News

INDIA bloc likely to meet on September 30 over Gyanesh Kumar row

INDIA bloc parties are likely to meet in New Delhi on September 30 amid growing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

20 mins ago

September 26, 2026

APNLive Desk

Opposition parties belonging to the INDIA bloc are set to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss concerns surrounding the Election Commission, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a proposed removal motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The proposed meeting comes amid growing coordination among opposition parties over the functioning of the poll panel and demands for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The parties are also discussing a possible joint response to the developments.

Why is the INDIA bloc meeting being planned?

The INDIA bloc meeting on September 30 comes amid reports of objections within the Election Commission over certain decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise.

According to the report, Opposition leaders have been discussing a coordinated response to their concerns over the Election Commission and the electoral-roll revision process.

The issue is also expected to be discussed at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29, a day before the proposed INDIA bloc meeting.

Gyanesh Kumar removal demand in focus

The demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a major point of contention between the Opposition and the Election Commission.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and an immediate halt to the SIR exercise. Congress has also intensified its criticism of the CEC.

Opposition parties are also working on a fresh removal motion against Gyanesh Kumar. The September 30 meeting is expected to finalise the strategy for the motion, including the collection of signatures. According to the report, this would be the Opposition’s third such attempt.

What is the SIR controversy?

The political dispute is linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, or SIR.

The controversy intensified following a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on several occasions concerning decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

The Election Commission has said that differing views and observations are part of normal deliberations in a multi-member constitutional body. The poll panel has also maintained that its orders have legal sanction and follow statutory procedures, while stating that the final decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously.

TMC and Left parties coordinate over the issue

The developments have also brought the Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) together on the Election Commission issue, despite their political differences in West Bengal.

CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby proposed an immediate meeting to discuss a joint strategy. According to the report, Mamata Banerjee spoke with M A Baby and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, after which the leaders settled on September 30 for the meeting.

What could be discussed at the September 30 meeting?

The proposed meeting is expected to focus on:

Concerns surrounding the Election Commission
The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
Opposition demands concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar
A possible fresh removal notice against the CEC
A coordinated response by INDIA bloc parties

The exact agenda and participation will depend on the discussions among the opposition parties before the proposed meeting.

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

5 hours ago

September 26, 2026

APNLive Desk

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

1 day ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.