SC slams CBI for ‘political battles’, rejects plea to open probe into Jharkhand Assembly appointments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 18 November, dismissed a plea by the CBI seeking permission to initiate a preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in appointments and promotions in the Jharkhand Assembly Secretariat, rebuking the central agency for deploying its machinery in what it termed “political battles”.

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which had last year stayed a Jharkhand High Court order directing a CBI probe, refused to grant the agency a go-ahead. “Why do you use the machinery for your political battles? … We have told you so many times,” the CJI remarked while rejecting the application.

Appearing for the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court it was “shocking” that the CBI appeared even before matters were listed. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the agency, denied any political motive, saying the CBI intervenes “when there is an offence”.

The case stems from the High Court’s 23 September 2024 order directing a CBI inquiry into alleged irregularities in appointments made between 2003 and 2007 under the Assembly Secretariat’s service rules. The Supreme Court stayed that order on 14 November 2024, after petitions challenged the ruling.

A plea filed through advocate Tulika Mukherjee argued that no criminality or cognisable offence existed to justify a CBI probe, stressing that the matter involved complex service-law issues and not corruption. It said no FIR had been registered, no evidence of bribe-taking had been found, and that earlier inquiries—including one by a former Jharkhand High Court judge—contained recommendations but no definitive findings of criminal wrongdoing.

The petitions recount multiple layers of scrutiny: a five-member committee formed in 2007 to examine unverified voice recordings alleging irregularities; a judicial commission appointed in 2014 whose report in 2018 included 30 recommendations; and subsequent administrative action, including the compulsory retirement of two officers in 2019.

The Secretariat argued that the High Court order ignored procedure under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, noting that the commission’s report had not been formally communicated to the state government as required.

As of now, with the Supreme Court’s rejection of CBI’s request, the case continues without any central investigation. The stay on the High Court’s 2024 order remains in force, and the larger challenge to the High Court judgment is still pending before the Supreme Court.