Crime Today News
By Binny Yadav
In a significant reaffirmation of established legal doctrine, the Supreme Court has ruled that mere “bald allegations”—unbacked by tangible evidence—are insufficient to warrant the transfer of a criminal investigation from the state police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The judgment, delivered in Vinay Aggarwal vs State of Haryana and Others, draws heavily from the landmark precedent set in State of West Bengal vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), where the Court underscored that the power to entrust a probe to the CBI must be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances—not as a matter of routine or convenience.
The Court’s message was unequivocal: bald assertions of incompetence or bias, without demonstrable proof, cannot be the basis for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of constitutional courts to hand over a case to the central agency.
The petition, filed by Vinay Aggarwal, sought a CBI investigation into a matter being handled by the Haryana Police, alleging procedural lapses and incompetence in the local investigation. However, the bench noted that the petitioner failed to provide any concrete material or compelling circumstances that could justify displacing the statutory authority of the state police.
“The petitioner has not demonstrated any deliberate inaction, suppression of evidence, or mala fide on the part of the investigating agency,” the Court observed. “Mere apprehension or dissatisfaction cannot override the legal framework that entrusts criminal investigation primarily to the police of the concerned state.”
Reaffirming A Judicial Philosophy
The decision aligns seamlessly with the Court’s long-held stance in State of West Bengal vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, where a Constitution bench had ruled that judicial directions for CBI probes must be exercised only in rare situations—typically when state police are either demonstrably compromised or when an investigation involves inter-state or national ramifications.
In that landmark case, the Court had held that “mere allegations, however serious, cannot be the basis for directing a CBI investigation unless supported by credible material.” The Vinay Aggarwal ruling breathes new life into that principle, particularly at a time when litigants increasingly seek CBI intervention as a perceived shortcut to expedited justice.
Maintaining Investigative Federalism
The judgment also serves as a crucial reminder of the principle of cooperative federalism embedded in India’s constitutional scheme. Policing is a state subject under the Seventh Schedule, and the default investigative authority rests with the state police. Any transfer of a case to the CBI, which functions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, effectively bypasses the state’s jurisdiction—a move that must be handled with judicial restraint.
By refusing to indulge in speculative claims of bias or inefficiency, the Court preserved not just legal precedent, but also the functional dignity of the state’s law enforcement apparatus.
Curbing The Rise of “Forum Shopping”
Legal experts note that the ruling also addresses a growing trend of “forum shopping” by litigants seeking more favourable or high-profile investigative forums.
“There is an increasing tendency to invoke the CBI in hopes of getting faster or more dramatic results,” reiterate some advocates, while others warn that “such transfers should not become a tool to undermine the state’s institutions.” By demanding substantiation, the judgment aims to draw a clear boundary between genuine cases of investigative failure and those propelled by impatience, distrust, or sensationalism.
Implications For Future Petitions
The verdict is expected to have a tempering effect on the volume of transfer pleas being filed across High Courts and the Supreme Court. Petitioners now have a clearer burden of proof—they must go beyond rhetoric and bring demonstrable, case-specific facts to light in order to justify such an intervention.
For law enforcement agencies, particularly at the state level, the ruling offers a reaffirmation of their constitutional standing. For the judiciary, it acts as a safeguard against being drawn into premature interference with ongoing investigations.
In a justice system increasingly influenced by public perception and media scrutiny, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinay Aggarwal is a powerful reminder that courts must act not on perception, but on principle. The judgment ensures that the exceptional power to transfer investigations to the CBI remains just that—exceptional.
As India continues to grapple with demands for high-profile investigations, the Court has drawn a clear line in the sand: allegations, no matter how fervently made, must be backed by facts. Without that the balance of justice must rest where the law originally placed it—with the local police.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
