The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday asked the Union government to present the authorization under which Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been allowed to investigate criminal cases in Chandigarh [Harcharan Singh Bhullar v Union of India and Others]

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathore passed the order after hearing petitions moved by the suspended Punjab-cadre Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Harcharan Singh Bhullar who has been arrested by the CBI in two separate cases of bribery and disproportionate assets.

"Let the matter be taken up in first week of December. Meanwhile, the counsel for the Central government is directed to produce the relevant order issued under Section 5(1) of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946," the Court ordered.

Bhullar, from whose Chandigarh residence the CBI recovered ₹7.5 crore in cash, documents related to over 50 immovable properties and other items, questioned the CBI's jurisdiction to register cases against him in the absence of any consent by the Punjab government.

He was allegedly caught demanding and accepting illegal gratification of ₹8 lakh from a businessman through his associate Krishanu Sharda for "settling" an FIR and for ensuring that no further coercive or adverse police action was taken against his business.

During the trap proceedings, a "controlled call" was allegedly made to Bhullar during which he is stated to have acknowledged the payment and directed the middleman and complainant to come to his office.

In the petitions challenging the cases, Deputy Inspector General (DIG)-rank officer submitted that the Punjab government had in 2020 withdrawn the 'general consent' granted to CBI under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for probing cases in the State and hence, it could not have even entertained the complaint.

Senior Advocate Randeep Singh Rai, representing Bhullar, submitted that the bribery complaint pertained to a Punjab case and had no connection to Chandigarh, where the alleged trap was laid and the DIG's aide was arrested. The alleged demand originated in Punjab and thus, the complaint could not have been entertained by CBI, he added.

"The question is whether the complaint could be entertained and did they [CBI] have the jurisdiction vested in them to even go forward with this," Rai submitted.

Rai also submitted that even in Chandigarh, the CBI cannot probe officers of Punjab government as the central agency in the union territory has been granted consent only to investigate the employees of Central government.

"The direction of Central government is categoric that it [consent] only applies to Central government employees posted in Chandigarh," the senior counsel said while seeking a direction that the consent order be produced before the Court.

Rai said that if Central government had given CBI the consent for all public servants posted in Chandigarh, which is the capital of Punjab and Haryana, the Central agency would become "vigilance bureau" for all employees of Punjab and Haryana.

With regard to disproportionate assets case, Bhullar's counsel argued that the FIR could not have been registered by the CBI since Punjab Vigilance had registered an FIR on the same allegations hours before on the same day.

"There are three things challenged here - one is jurisdiction of CBI, the illegal arrest because there are no grounds of arrest and third, you cannot have two FIRs on the same cause question," Rai added.

Interestingly, the Punjab government too supported the IPS officer on the aspect of jurisdiction, stating that a "very important question of law" on CBI's jurisdiction was involved in the matter. A counsel appearing for the State said if any public servant commits an offence, he should be punished but only in accordance with law.

"Now the proper course for CBI would have been to obtain our specific consent under Section 6 or should have sent the complaint to [Punjab] Vigilance Bureau which is looking after corruption matters in State of Punjab. The initial complaint say he [Bhullar] is sitting in Mohali, Ropar and he is asking for money. No role of Chandigarh in the initial complaint on which they [CBI] started their initial verification of facts. This all has been done purposely, deliberately to create jurisdiction of Chandigarh in a mischievous manner," the counsel said.

He added that Bhullar should be punished if he has committed any offence but it should be in accordance with law.

On Punjab's submissions, Chief Justice Nagu asked,

"Why are you so particular about these things?"

The counsel reiterated that important question of law was involved and that the State was not concerned with the facts of the case.

In response to Bhullar's plea, CBI's Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) Akashdeep Singh and Ravi Kamal Gupta argued that since the money was accepted in Chandigarh, the CBI automatically got the jurisdiction of the Union Territory.

It was also submitted that the recoveries were made in Chandigarh.

"They [accused] are presently in custody and we are due to file challan in December," Gupta added.

The matter is next listed for hearing on December 4.

Interestingly, during the hearing, the counsel appearing in the matter said that Bhullar's petitions were supposed to be listed before a single-judge in accordance with the roster. However, Chief Justice Nagu revealed that it was listed "on orders" before the division bench.