Summary
The Supreme Court has agreed to urgently hear the Punjab government's challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court order. Passed on October 5 on a public interest litigation, the order directs the CBI to register a case and investigate corruption allegations linked to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann's office.
The allegations originated with the Enforcement Directorate, which shared material with the Punjab DGP under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. It alleged that the CM's Officer on Special Duty, Rajbir Singh Ghuman and associates interfered in transfers, postings, government work and tenders.
The High Court was dissatisfied with the Punjab Police's handling, found that a fair and transparent probe was needed and gave the CBI two months to report. Appearing before CJI Surya Kant, senior advocates Vikas Singh and Shadan Farasat argued that the order violates federal principles in a poll-bound state and that the CBI cannot be directed to register an FIR.
WHY IN NEWS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
On October 6, 2026, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list Punjab's challenge to the High Court's October 5 order directing a CBI probe into allegations involving the Chief Minister's office. The State argues that the order breaches federalism in a poll-bound state.
Standard News
The Federal Shield Has a Condition: The State Must Use Its Own Sword
Policing belongs to the states. Entry 2 of the State List places "police" with state governments and Entry 80 of the Union List allows one police force to operate in another state's territory only with that state's consent.
Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the law that created the CBI, applies the same principle: the CBI cannot investigate within a state without its consent. Punjab, like several states, has withdrawn its general consent.
On paper, then, Punjab's objection to the High Court's order is constitutionally coherent. The text, however, has never been the whole story.
The rule as written and the rule as practiced In State of West Bengal v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), a Constitution Bench held that High Courts and the Supreme Court, exercising their constitutional writ powers, can direct a CBI probe without the state's consent. The consent requirement binds the executive, not the constitutional courts.
So the question in Punjab is not whether the High Court had the power. It plainly did. The question is whether it had reason to use it. That is where the dates matter. The ED shared its material with the Punjab DGP under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
That provision does not let the ED prosecute non-money-laundering offences itself; it requires the ED to pass information about such offences to the agency that can. The DGP's office received it on August 3. On October 5, a Division Bench hearing a PIL found the state police's handling unsatisfactory and moved the probe to the CBI, with a two-month deadline to report.
Why federalism cuts both ways here Punjab's counsel make two arguments: the state is going to the polls, so a central probe is politically loaded and a court cannot direct the CBI to register an FIR.
The first is a legitimate concern, given the pattern of central agency action against opposition governments. The second runs into the 2010 precedent. But the deeper weakness in Punjab's position is structural. Federalism gives a state the power to police itself and with that power comes the duty to use it.
Withdrawn general consent is a shield against the Union's executive. It was never meant to shield a state's own inaction when the allegations reach the Chief Minister's office. When a state police force sits on a statutory referral involving its own political leadership, it creates the credibility vacuum that invites a constitutional court to step in.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether the High Court overreached. The stronger federal argument would have been a visible, credible state investigation in August.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the CBI probe on October 5, 2026, on a PIL filed by advocate Nikhil Saraf.
-
The CBI must report to the High Court within two months; the case is next listed before the High Court on December 7.
-
The ED shared its material with the Punjab DGP under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
-
The DGP's office received the ED communication on August 3.
-
The allegations name the CM's Officer on Special Duty Rajbir Singh Ghuman and his alleged associates Nitin Gohal and Bir Devinder.
-
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant heard the mention of Punjab's plea on October 6.
-
Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the CBI needs a state's consent to investigate within its territory.
-
Punjab is among the states that have withdrawn general consent to the CBI.
-
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
-
Union of India (2022) upheld the ED's wide powers of arrest, search and seizure under the PMLA.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The full constitutional architecture behind the dispute, from Entry 2 of the State List to Entry 80 of the Union List and where each one runs out.
How PMLA Section 66(2) and the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling together create a pipeline that forces state police to act or be bypassed.
Why election timing strengthens Punjab's political argument but not its legal one.
A way forward on police reform that would make court-ordered CBI transfers the exception rather than the habit.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free