The motion debates whether state governments should legally retain power to block or resist CBI investigations into corruption allegations against their own officers, or whether such authority undermines anti-corruption accountability.
Aaj ki yeh debate ek bahut hi mahatvapurna constitutional sawaal par hai — kya State Governments ko yeh adhikar hona chahiye ki woh apne officers ko CBI jaanch se bachaa sakein? Yeh motion federalism, accountability, aur law enforcement ke beech ke nazuk santulan ko challenge karta hai — toh aiye, is par vichar karein. Main Counsel Aarav se request karungi ki woh apna paksh shuru karein.
My lord, main yeh sthaapit karna chahta hoon ki State Governments ko apne officers ko CBI jaanch se shield karne ka adhikar hona chahiye — aur yeh koi naya siddhant nahi hai, balki hamare apne kanoon mein pehle se maujood hai. Assam State Vigilance Commission Act, 2010 ka Section 25(1) saaf kehta hai ki Deputy Secretary aur usse upar ke State officers ke khilaf koi bhi jaanch tab tak nahi hogi jab tak State Government ki pehle se manzuri na ho — yeh ek valid, legislative safeguard hai jo State ke accountability structure ko intact rakhta hai. Is tarah ka prior-approval mechanism federalism ki bhavna ke anukool hai aur State ki apni vigilance machinery ko meaningfully kaam karne deta hai, na ki usse bypass kar diya jaaye.
Ref: Assam State Vigilance Commission Act, 2010 · Section 25
My lord, vipaksh ki taraf se main yeh kehna chahti hoon ki State Governments ko CBI jaanch se officers ko shield karne ka adhikar dena — yeh accountability ka sidha gala ghotna hai. Assam State Vigilance Commission Act, 2010 ka Section 25(1) dekha jaye, to woh pehle se hi State approval ki mandatory requirement rakhta hai Deputy Secretary aur upar ke officers ke liye — iska matlab yeh nahi ki shield diya jaye, balki iska matlab hai ki ek structured, accountable process rahe, na ki blanket protection. Paksh jo maang raha hai woh is provision ki bhavana ke viruddh hai — kyunki Section 25(2) khud kehta hai ki spot-arrest cases mein koi approval zaroori nahi, yaani kanoon ne bhi maana hai ki kuch situations mein immediate probe essential hai.
Ref: Assam State Vigilance Commission Act, 2010 · Section 25
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki consent ka yeh provision federalism ki aad mein corruption ko bachata hai — lekin main seedha poochhta hoon: kya har CBI inquiry, bina state ki sahmat ke, ek blanket licence ban jaaye? Yeh soch hi federalism ki buniyad ko hilaa deti hai, kyunki state ka apne officers par administrative control ek established constitutional convention hai jo cooperative federalism ka core hai. Aur jahan tak corruption ki baat hai, state ke apne vigilance mechanisms — jo is consent process ke parallel kaam karte hain — corruption ke khilaf uthne ka raasta band nahi karte, balki uncheck central overreach ko zaroor rokते hain.
My lord, paksh ne jo argument diya hai — ki state ki 'consent' ek safeguard hai — woh safeguard nahi, balki accountability ka gala ghontne ka zariya hai; jis officer par probe honi chahiye, usi ke superior us probe ko rok sakte hain, yeh koi check nahi, yeh impunity ka license hai. Aur jahan tak federalism ka sawaal hai, main maanti hoon ki federalism zaroori hai, lekin federalism ka matlab yeh kabhi nahi hota ki ek state apne bhrashtachar ko central agency ki aankhon se chhupa sake — federalism accountability se upar nahi hota. Is liye vipaksh ka stand clear hai: yeh authority states ko nahi di jaani chahiye, kyunki yeh janta ke saath vishwaasghaat hai, aur koi bhi constitutional convention aise shield ko naitik thahraa nahi sakta.
Aaj ki is debate mein, Petition side ne yeh dalaeel di ki State ko apne officers ki suraksha ke liye shield authority honi chahiye — federalism aur administrative accountability ke naam par. Jabki Opposition side ne isko accountability breach aur CBI ki swatantra jaanch par rok bataya. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki State ko Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ke Section 17 ke provisos ke antargat apne State machinery ko majboot karne ka adhikar zaroor milna chahiye — lekin yeh shield unconditional nahi honi chahiye; Assam State Vigilance Commission Act, Section 25 jaisi prior-approval mechanism ke saath checks aur balances bane rahne chahiye, taaki naa jaanch ruke aur naa federalism kamzor ho. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay zaroor den!
Ref: PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 · Section 17; Assam State Vigilance Commission Act, 2010 · Section 25