Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

50 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSUNIL TRIPATHI ETC. ETC.

2018 INSC 65331 July 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the Union of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a Delhi High Court order that directed the CBI to convert three preliminary enquiries into FIRs/RCs and to complete the investigation. The CBI argued that its preliminary enquiries concluded there was no invol

STATE OF PUNJABversusV.K. KHANNA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 55930 November 2000Dismissed

The former Chief Secretary of Punjab, V.K. Khanna, referred two cases to the CBI with the then Chief Minister’s approval; after a change of government the new administration withdrew the referrals and issued a charge‑sheet alleging malafide intent, bias and procedural violations. Khanna challenged the charge‑sheet befo

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusFAROOK MOHAMMED KASIM MAPKAR & ORS.

2010 INSC 46130 July 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the State of Maharashtra challenging a Bombay High Court order that directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a case and investigate the 1993 Hari Masjid incident, where police fire caused six deaths. The State argued that the High Court should not have exerc

BINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

2011 INSC 23429 March 2011Dismissed

The case concerned a multi‑crore iron‑ore mining lease scam involving former ministers of Jharkhand, including a former chief minister, with allegations of illicit wealth amassed through abuse of official position. The High Court, noting the complexity and trans‑national nature of the alleged investments, referred the

KAZI LHENDUP DORJIversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

1994 INSC 12929 March 1994Case Allowed

The former Chief Minister of Sikkim challenged a 1987 notification that withdrew the State's consent, given under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, for CBI investigations into alleged corruption. The petition raised whether a State could revoke such consent, whether section 21 of the Genera

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 115228 November 2017Dismissed

The public‑interest litigation filed by Common Cause challenged the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana as Special Director of the CBI, alleging that the Selection Committee had not taken a decision and that the appointment was illegal, arbitrary and tainted by pending investigations. The Court examined the Delhi Specia

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 91327 November 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a Public Interest Litigation concerning the Taj Heritage Corridor project, which alleged irregularities and unauthorized release of Rs. 17 crore. The Court had earlier ordered a CBI inquiry and later directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate senior officials. The Director of CBI sub

MANOJ NARULAversusUNION OF INDIA

2014 INSC 56827 August 2014Disposed off

The petition challenged the appointment of several Union Ministers on the ground that they had criminal antecedents or were facing charges for serious offences, seeking a declaration that such appointments were unconstitutional and requesting the Court to frame guidelines for ministerial appointments. The Court examine

NIRMAL SINGH KAHLONversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2008 INSC 121122 October 2008Dismissed

A writ petition challenged the selection of Panchayat Secretaries and alleged irregularities involving the former Rural Development Minister, Nirmal Singh Kahlon. The High Court, after a prima facie finding of fraud, directed an inquiry which led to a Vigilance Department FIR and charge‑sheet. The Court then ordered th

MANIYARI MADHVANversusSUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

1993 INSC 30622 September 1993

Maniyeri Madhavan, a journalist, alleged that Kerala police assaulted him and his newspaper office and sought an impartial investigation. The Kerala High Court directed a Deputy Inspector General to investigate, but the investigation stalled and the Supreme Court, exercising its Article 142 jurisdiction, ordered the CB

POOJA PALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2016 INSC 8622 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Pooja Pal, the widow of slain MLA Raju Pal, alleged that the state police and administration were complicit or indifferent in the murder of her husband and sought a fresh investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The High Court dismissed her writ petition, but the Supreme Court held that when an inves

UNION OF INDIA AND ANRversusC. DINAKAR, L.P.S. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 29020 April 2004Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s affirmation of a Central Administrative Tribunal order that quashed the appointment of R.K. Raghavan as Director of the CBI and directed a fresh selection process. The first respondent, C. Dinakar, a senior IPS officer who had retired, claimed that the appo

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRASversusV. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

1997 INSC 16820 February 1997Dismissed

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, acting as complainant, appealed to the High Court against the sentences imposed on V. Krishnamurthy and others for offences investigated by a Customs Officer, invoking Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court examined whether a Customs Department off

NAHAR SINGH YADAV & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2010 INSC 79019 November 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an application by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to transfer the trial of the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam from the Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad to a court in Delhi. The case involved alleged fraudulent withdrawals of government funds by former court officials and judges. The C

COMMON CAUSE & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 22819 February 2019Dismissed

Common Cause and an RTI activist filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking to quash the appointment of Mr. Nageshwar Rao as interim Director of the CBI and to compel the Union of India to appoint a regular Director in accordance with Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. They also demande

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH S.P. JAIPURversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

2001 INSC 3819 January 2001Disposed off

A complaint alleging serious offences was filed before a magistrate who, invoking his power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate and required a final report. The CBI challenged the order, arguing that a magistrate has no jurisdiction to

VINEET NARAIN AND ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1997 INSC 82618 December 1997Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined public‑interest writ petitions filed after the CBI seized diaries implicating senior politicians and bureaucrats. The petitions alleged that the CBI and revenue authorities had failed to investigate the allegations and that a government "Single Directive" requiring prior sanction of the conce

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

2013 INSC 83917 December 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which requires prior Central Government approval for CBI investigations into senior officials, applies when the investigation is being monitored by the Court itself. The Court noted that the CBI had initiated investigatio

HEMANT DHASMANAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

2001 INSC 37417 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Hemant Dhasmana filed a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the sons of a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax demanded a bribe. The CBI conducted a trap, recovered cash, but its final report exonerated the respondents and accused Dhasmana of false information. The Special Judge rejected the CBI

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS.versusSUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 124116 October 2025Disposed off

The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council’s recruitment process for staff was challenged on grounds of unfairness, arbitrariness and collusiveness, leading to writ petitions and a special appeal. The High Court, while hearing the special appeal, directed a suo motu public interest litigation and ordered a preliminary enqui

ROHIT CHATURVEDIversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

2026 INSC 49015 May 2026Disposed off

The petitioner, Rohit Chaturvedi, was convicted for murder under Sections 120B and 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007. After serving more than twenty‑two years, he sought premature release, which was recommended by the Uttarakhand State Government but rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs in a letter

M. BALAKRISHNA REDDYversusDIRECTOR, CBI, NEW DELHI

2008 INSC 37114 March 2008Dismissed

M. Balakrishna Reddy, a Central Government employee, was charged by the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for alleged cheating in a UPSC exam held in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. He challenged the CBI's jurisdiction, arguing that the State of Madhya Pradesh had not given the consent required under S

AKHILESH YADAV ETC. ETC.versusVISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS.

2012 INSC 60713 December 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a 2007 order that directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inquire into alleged disproportionate assets of a political family and to submit its report to the Union of India. The petitioners sought a review, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order a CBI inquiry without

LALITA KUMARIversusGOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS.

2013 INSC 74812 November 2013Reference answered

The Constitution Bench examined whether a police officer must register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, or may first conduct a preliminary inquiry to test its veracity. Relying on the literal meaning of

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FOOD SECURITYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2011 INSC 38512 May 2011Heard

The Centre for Environment and Food Security filed a public‑interest writ petition seeking directions to ensure proper implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA) and its schemes, alleging fund diversion and irregularities, particularly in Orissa. The Supreme Court, afte

SURENDRA KOLIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 130811 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Surendra Koli, a former domestic help at the Nithari residence, was convicted for the murder, rape and related offences of a minor based on a Section 164 confession and alleged discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court had earlier affirmed his conviction and death sentence in 2011, and a revie

CBIversusR.R. KISHORE

2023 INSC 81711 September 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The CBI registered a case against Dr. R.R. Kishore for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but conducted the investigation without the prior approval of the Central Government required by Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Delhi High Court allowed the trial

DR. JAYA THAKURversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 61611 July 2023Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 on the ground that they allowed arbitrary extensions of the tenure of the Director of Enforcement and the Director of CBI, thereby e

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusRAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, IAS AND ANR.

2006 INSC 50510 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 against an IAS officer. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR, alleging that the State of Rajasthan had withdrawn its consent for

THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 50210 July 2024Directions issued

The State of West Bengal filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Union of India’s registration of cases by the CBI after the State withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act is unconstitutional, and asked for an injunctio

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6988 July 1996Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC to investigate alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) by Shri Arvind Singh Mewar, who was accused of purchasing property and incurring expenses abroad without RBI approval. The Chief Judicial Magistrat

ALOK KUMAR VERMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 368 January 2019Disposed off

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Government of India issued orders on 23 October 2018 divesting Director Alok Kumar Verma of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of his powers, functions and supervisory role. The Director challenged the legality of these orders, arguing that under Section 4B(2) of th

SUBHASH CHANDversusSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

2013 INSC 158 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a food manufacturer, was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act after a complaint by the Local Health Authority and was acquitted by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The State sought to appeal the acquittal in the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wh

SHASHIKANTversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

2006 INSC 7927 November 2006Dismissed

Shashikant, a railway employee, lodged an anonymous complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging corruption by several officers. The CBI conducted a preliminary inquiry without registering a First Information Report (FIR) and recommended departmental action, which was carried out. Shashikant was la

JEEWAN KUMAR RAUT & ANR.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

2009 INSC 8757 July 2009Dismissed

The appellants, medical practitioners, were charged under the Indian Penal Code and the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (TOHO) for alleged illegal organ removal. The initial FIR was lodged with the Gurgaon police, but investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which filed a complain

UNION OF INDIAversusPRAKASH P. HINDUJA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 3027 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the Bofors scandal where the CBI filed charge‑sheets against Prakash P. Hinduja and others for offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused contended that the charge‑sheets were illegal because the CBI had not placed the investigation report before the Central Vigilance C

STATE THROUGH CBIversusDAWOOD IBRAHIM KASKAR AND ORS.

1997 INSC 4887 May 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the 1993 bomb blasts in Bombay, after which the CBI took over investigation and sought non‑bailable warrants under Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 8(3)(a) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) to apprehend several absconding accused. The Desi

HEMAversusSTATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS

2013 INSC 97 January 2013Disposed off

The appellant, a clerk in a travel agency, was convicted under sections 120B, 420, 511, 465 and 471 of the IPC for conspiring to obtain 42 passports using forged applications and documents. The prosecution alleged that the travel agency, run by a co‑accused, submitted ante‑dated applications with duplicate file numbers

MS. MAYAWATIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2012 INSC 2726 July 2012Case Allowed

Mayawati, then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003, which the CBI had lodged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging disproportionate assets. The FIR was said to be based on a Sup

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusDIRECTOR, CENTERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2014 INSC 3586 May 2014Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 6‑A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (inserted by Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003), which required prior approval of the Central Government before the CBI could inquire into or investigate alleged offences u

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ETC.versusSAMPAT LAL & ORS. ETC.

1984 INSC 2284 December 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Two young boys were found dead under mysterious circumstances in Barrackpore, West Bengal, prompting letters to the Calcutta High Court alleging police negligence and demanding an independent investigation by the CBI. The High Court, without giving notice to the State, issued a rule directing the Deputy Inspector Gener

UNION OF INDIAversusV. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN & ORS.

2015 INSC 8862 December 2015Reference answered

The case arose from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, for which several accused were convicted and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court. The State of Tamil Nadu proposed to remit the life sentences of the convicts, prompting the Union of India to file a wri

MOHINDRA HIRE PURCHASEversusJARNAIL SINGH . ,

2008 INSC 13691 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohindra Hire Purchase, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act leading to the accused's acquittal. The appellant then sought special leave to appeal the acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the applicatio

LALU PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 1881 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the State of Bihar could file an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an acquittal rendered by a Special CBI Judge when the offence was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI). The Court held that the opening words "save as o

ASHOK KUMAR TODIversusKISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.

2011 INSC 1701 March 2011Disposed off

Rizwanur Rahman married Priyanka Todi under the Special Marriage Act. After the marriage, police officials repeatedly interfered, threatened the couple and later the deceased was found dead on railway tracks. The mother and brother of the deceased filed a writ petition seeking transfer of the investigation from the Sta

THE STATE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusA. SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 111 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed appeals against a High Court order that quashed FIRs and subsequent proceedings against two Central Government employees accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents argued that, following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the CBI req

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search