The CBI is India's main central investigating agency under the DSPE Act, 1946; this entry sets out its legal basis, oversight, conviction rates, state consent withdrawals, court remarks and each side's stated position.
A dossier is a fact file. It records what is on record and who said what; it does not give a verdict. It is not scored and earns or loses no party points. How dossiers are written.
The CBI operates under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, and sits within the Department of Personnel and Training, with the Central Vigilance Commission given a supervisory role over its anti-corruption work by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain [1]. The Director is appointed by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party) and the Chief Justice of India or a nominated judge [1].
Section 6A of the DSPE Act, which required government approval to investigate senior officers, was struck down by a Constitution Bench in May 2014 [2]. Parliament later inserted s.17A in the Prevention of Corruption Act (2018); two Supreme Court judges gave divergent opinions on it in January 2026 and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice [11]. Because policing is a state subject, the DSPE Act requires a state’s consent for the CBI to work there; ten states were reported to have withdrawn general consent by December 2023, in states governed by Congress, Trinamool Congress, Left, JMM, DMK, TRS and an NDA-constituent party [8].
In May 2013 a Supreme Court bench said, in the coal allocation case, that the CBI was a caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice, after the Director disclosed that a draft status report had been shared with the Law Minister and others [6]. The Director said the next day that whatever the Court said was correct; in 2022 the Law Minister said the CBI is no more a caged parrot.
Official data give conviction rates between about 67 and 75 per cent for 2018 to 2022 [4]. A media analysis reports a rise in the opposition share of prominent politicians probed from about 60 to about 95 per cent; a CBI official called it a coincidence and noted that many cases were court-ordered [5]. This entry presents those figures and statements and does not determine whether either is correct as to motive.
In date order. Each item shows what kind of statement it is, who is the actor, and where it comes from.
Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India gives the Central Vigilance Commission a supervisory role over the CBI and lists guidelines to protect the agency's independence (Wikipedia summary; a search-result summary of the judgment places it on 18 December 1997; the judgment was not opened).
Source [1]: Central Bureau of InvestigationA five-judge Supreme Court bench rules that High Courts and the Supreme Court can order a CBI probe without state consent, as an extraordinary power to be used sparingly.
Source [1]: Central Bureau of InvestigationIn the coal allocation case a three-judge bench headed by Justice R. M. Lodha remarks orally that the CBI is a caged parrot speaking in its master's voice, after learning the draft status report had been shared with the Law Minister and officials of the PMO and Coal Ministry (Manmohan Singh-era government, centre-2004-manmohan-1). An oral remark in hearings, not a holding.
Source [6]: Seven years after Supreme Court caged-parrot comment, where does CBI stand (seen in search results, not opened); remark and affidavit context also from Moneylife and Caravan resultsConstitution Bench in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI strikes down s.6A of the DSPE Act (prior central approval to investigate officers of Joint Secretary rank and above) as violating Article 14.
Source [2]: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, 6 May 2014 (opened; paras 58 to 68 read)(Year only.) Mizoram (Congress-led government) withdraws general consent to the CBI; exact date not given in the sources.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done itSection 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act takes effect, requiring prior approval to inquire into offences linked to official recommendations or decisions (Modi-era government, centre-2014-modi-1).
Source [4]: Rise in CBI's conviction rate in 5 yrs, Rajya Sabha told (reply of 6 April 2023)(November 2018.) West Bengal (Trinamool Congress government) and Andhra Pradesh (TDP government) withdraw general consent to the CBI in November 2018; the exact day is given for West Bengal only in one source.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done it(Month and year only.) Chhattisgarh (Congress government, Bhupesh Baghel) withdraws general consent in January 2019; Andhra Pradesh (YSRCP government) restores it in 2019.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done it(Month and year only.) Rajasthan (Congress government) withdraws general consent in July 2020; Maharashtra follows in October 2020; Kerala, Jharkhand and Punjab in November 2020.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done it(Month and year only.) Meghalaya (NPP-led government, an NDA constituent) withdraws general consent in March 2022.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done itTelangana (TRS government) issues Government Order No. 51 withdrawing general consent.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done itSupreme Court hears a petition by 14 opposition parties alleging arbitrary use of the CBI and ED; the petition is reported dismissed on that date.
Source [1]: Central Bureau of InvestigationTamil Nadu (DMK-led government) withdraws general consent hours after the ED arrested minister V. Senthil Balaji.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done itSupreme Court upholds the 2021 amendments allowing CBI and ED directors up to five years' total tenure, while holding the ED Director's extensions illegal.
Source [10]: SC declares extension of ED director Mishra illegal; upholds CVC and DSPE amendments (seen in search results, not opened)Centre tells the Lok Sabha that ten states had withdrawn general consent: Punjab, Jharkhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Mizoram, Telangana, Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done itSupreme Court (Justices Viswanathan and Nagarathna) delivers divergent opinions on s.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act: Justice Viswanathan declines to strike it down and proposes independent (Lokpal or Lokayukta) approval; Justice Nagarathna holds it unconstitutional. The matter is referred to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench (judgment opened via Indian Kanoon; the operative direction is quoted from its final paragraph).
Source [11]: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 13 January 2026, s.17A Prevention of Corruption Act (opened via Indian Kanoon)Findings, official statements, data and events are on record. An allegation is a claim that no finding has established; it is marked with a dashed border, a warning triangle and the words "Not established", and always shows its status and any response.
| Claim | Type | Made by | Status | Response | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 6A of the DSPE Act, inserted by the CVC Act, 2003, violates Article 14; classification by status of the public servant has no rational link to the purpose of anti-corruption law, and the protection had a propensity of shielding the corrupt. | Finding | Supreme Court Constitution Bench, 6 May 2014 (Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI), paras 58 to 68 | Settled as to invalidity; a later Constitution Bench (C.B.I. v. R.R. Kishore, 11 September 2023) reportedly held that Article 20(1) has no application to the invalidity of s.6A. Parliament then enacted s.17A (2018); on 13 January 2026 two judges gave divergent opinions on it and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for a bench. | The Solicitor General (Tushar Mehta) argued s.17A is not a replica of s.6A. | [2]: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, 6 May 2014 (opened; paras 58 to 68 read) |
| A bench headed by Justice R. M. Lodha remarked orally that the CBI was a caged parrot speaking in its master's voice. | Official statement | Bench headed by Justice R. M. Lodha, 8 May 2013, coal allocation case | Oral remark reported by the media, made during hearings and not a holding in a final judgment. The remark followed an affidavit by CBI Director Ranjit Sinha disclosing that the draft status report had been shared with the Law Minister Ashwani Kumar and officials of the PMO and Coal Ministry. | CBI Director Ranjit Sinha said the next day that whatever the Supreme Court said was correct. In April 2022, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said the CBI is no more a caged parrot (Tribune report, seen in search results). | [6]: Seven years after Supreme Court caged-parrot comment, where does CBI stand (seen in search results, not opened); remark and affidavit context also from Moneylife and Caravan results |
| Not established by a findingThe share of opposition politicians among prominent politicians probed by the CBI rose from about 60 per cent (43 of 72) in the UPA era to about 95 per cent (118 of 124) in the NDA era. | Allegation | Indian Express investigation, September 2022, as summarised by Newsclick on adrindia.org; also cited by 14 opposition parties in their 2023 petition | A media count of 'prominent' politicians booked, arrested, raided or questioned. The pages opened do not set out the selection criteria or how opposition was defined, and the underlying Indian Express article was not opened. Not a court finding. | A CBI official said the disproportionate share of opposition leaders under any regime is merely a coincidence, that many cases were court-ordered (for example Anil Deshmukh, Saradha, Narada, Partha Chatterjee and the West Bengal poll violence case), and that several were recommended by state governments. The report contained no response from the government or the BJP. | [5]: 95% jump in number of opposition leaders in CBI net under NDA (Newsclick summary of Indian Express investigation, 20 Sept 2022) |
| Not established by a findingThe CBI has gone easy on leaders who joined the BJP, for example Himanta Biswa Sarma, and did not appeal Amit Shah's discharge in the Sohrabuddin case. | Allegation | Indian Express reporting, as summarised by Newsclick (September 2022) | Unverified by a court finding in the sources used. No individual outcome here is evidence of the reason it occurred. | No response from Mr Sarma or Mr Shah was found in the sources used; the CBI official quoted above gave a general reply (court orders and state recommendations). | [5]: 95% jump in number of opposition leaders in CBI net under NDA (Newsclick summary of Indian Express investigation, 20 Sept 2022) |
| Not established by a findingUnder the UPA the BJP and its supporters described the CBI as being used against opponents: Organiser, a weekly, carried a July 2012 article headed CBI as Congress Bureau of Investigation. Reporters of the Indian Express piece also point to a 2013 raid on DMK premises two days after the DMK left the UPA. | Allegation | Organiser (July 2012, seen in search results, not opened); Indian Express reporters (via Newsclick summary) | Claims in both cases are unadjudicated. The Organiser article is an opinion piece, not a finding. | A response from the UPA-era government to the 2012 article was not located. | [5]: 95% jump in number of opposition leaders in CBI net under NDA (Newsclick summary of Indian Express investigation, 20 Sept 2022) |
| The conviction rate was 68% in 2018, 69.19% in 2019, 69.83% in 2020, 67.56% in 2021 and 74.59% in 2022. | Data | Minister of State for Personnel Jitendra Singh, Rajya Sabha written reply, 6 April 2023 | Official figures; the reply as reported did not give the number of cases registered or convicted. Rates for 2023 (71.47%) and 2024 (69.14%) appear on a Wikipedia page whose accuracy is marked as disputed and were not checked against an official source. | Former Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra has said the rate that matters is how many trial-court convictions survive appeal. | [4]: Rise in CBI's conviction rate in 5 yrs, Rajya Sabha told (reply of 6 April 2023) |
| States have withdrawn general consent for the CBI to investigate in their territory: opposition-ruled states and one NDA-constituent state. | Data | Ministry of Personnel reply in the Lok Sabha, 20 December 2023; The Quint and South First reporting | Withdrawal is a legal step under s.6 of the DSPE Act; the CBI may still investigate in those states on court orders or with case-specific consent. The Kerala High Court held in August 2023 that state anti-corruption bodies can investigate corruption cases involving central employees. | The Centre's stated reasons for the withdrawals were not located in the sources used. The states' stated reasons are given only in part (for example Tamil Nadu's withdrawal followed the ED arrest of a minister). The Karnataka withdrawal (2024) appears only on a Wikipedia page and is not verified. | [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done it |
Who says what, paraphrased with attribution. Every holder gets a card of the same size and the same fields.
The CBI is a statutory body under the DSPE Act, 1946, and sits within the Department of Personnel and Training, which is part of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
Source [1]: Central Bureau of InvestigationOpposition share of probed politicians is a coincidence under any regime; many cases were ordered by courts or recommended by state governments; the agency must follow court orders.
Source [5]: 95% jump in number of opposition leaders in CBI net under NDA (Newsclick summary of Indian Express investigation, 20 Sept 2022)Central agencies have been used arbitrarily against opposition leaders; the petition cited a rise in the opposition share of those investigated from 54 per cent before 2014 to 95 per cent after (54 per cent matches the ED figure of 14 of 26 under the UPA era in the ED dossier; the CBI count above is 43 of 72, about 60 per cent).
Source [9]: 14 opposition parties move Supreme Court against arbitrary use of ED, CBI; hearing on April 5 (seen in search results, not opened)Defers to government authority in non-corruption cases but has sought more autonomy, such as a separate budget.
Source [1]: Central Bureau of InvestigationReasons were stated only in part in the sources used; the Telangana order was disclosed to the High Court on 30 October 2022 and Tamil Nadu's followed the Senthil Balaji arrest.
Source [8]: 10 states withdraw general consent to CBI to investigate cases: Centre (Lok Sabha reply 20 Dec 2023); Telangana withdraws general consent: which other states have done it| Year | Conviction rate (%) | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 68.00 | Rajya Sabha reply |
| 2019 | 69.19 | Rajya Sabha reply |
| 2020 | 69.83 | Rajya Sabha reply |
| 2021 | 67.56 | Rajya Sabha reply |
| 2022 | 74.59 | Rajya Sabha reply |
| 2023 | 71.47 | Wikipedia, unverified |
| 2024 | 69.14 | Wikipedia, unverified |
| State | Withdrawal | Governing party or alliance | Later status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mizoram | 2015 | Congress (Lal Thanhawla) | Not restored after 2018 NDA-supported change |
| Andhra Pradesh | Nov 2018 | TDP (N. Chandrababu Naidu) | Restored 2019 by YSRCP government |
| West Bengal | Nov 2018 | Trinamool Congress (Mamata Banerjee) | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Chhattisgarh | Jan 2019 | Congress (Bhupesh Baghel) | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Rajasthan | Jul 2020 | Congress | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Maharashtra | Oct 2020 | Maha Vikas Aghadi (Uddhav Thackeray) | Restored: sources differ (20 Oct 2021 per one; under the Shinde government per The Wire) |
| Kerala | Nov 2020 | LDF (Pinarayi Vijayan) | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Jharkhand | Nov 2020 | JMM-led alliance (Hemant Soren) | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Punjab | Nov 2020 | Congress (Amarinder Singh) | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Meghalaya | Mar 2022 | NPP-led (NDA constituent) | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Telangana | 30 Aug 2022 | TRS (K. Chandrashekar Rao) | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Tamil Nadu | 14 Jun 2023 | DMK-led | Listed among ten states in Dec 2023 |
| Party | Number of leaders |
|---|---|
| Trinamool Congress | 30 |
| Congress | 26 |
| RJD | 10 |
| BJD | 10 |
| YSRCP | 6 |
| BSP | 5 |
| TDP | 5 |
| AAP | 4 |
| SP | 4 |
| AIADMK | 4 |
| CPI(M) | 4 |
| NCP | 3 |
| National Conference | 2 |
| DMK | 2 |
| PDP | 1 |
| TRS | 1 |
| Independent | 1 |
Numbers in square brackets refer to this list. Types: primary, official data and court sources are weighed above media and academic ones.
Facts as of . Last reviewed .Report an error.
Printed from https://indiareview.pages.dev/dossiers/central-bureau-of-investigation/. Facts as of 12 Oct 2026; check the sources for later developments.