ALOK KUMAR VERMA V. UNION OF INDIA (2019) 3 SCC 619:

DATE: 8/1/2019

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.K. Kaul, and Justice K.M. Joseph

FACTS:

Alok Kumar Verma, the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was appointed for a fixed tenure of two years starting from February 1, 2017. However, on the night of October 23–24, 2018, the Central Government, in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), issued an order divesting him of his powers and responsibilities as CBI Director and directing him to go on leave. This action was taken amidst an internal feud between Alok Verma and the CBI Special Director, Rakesh Asthana, with mutual allegations of corruption. The government appointed M. Nageswara Rao as the interim director. Alok Verma challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated Section 4B of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, which grants the CBI Director a fixed tenure protected from arbitrary removal.

The government justified its action by citing the urgent need to maintain institutional integrity and public confidence in the CBI, especially amid the conflict between its top officers. The case raised critical questions about the independence of the CBI and the extent of the government's authority in removing or curtailing the powers of the Director. The Supreme Court had to examine whether the government’s decision to strip Alok Verma of his responsibilities without consulting the statutory high-powered committee — comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India — was legally valid under the DSPE Act.

ISSUES:

The key issue was whether the Central Government could remove or divest the CBI Director of his powers without consulting the high-powered committee as required under Section 4B of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The case also questioned if such actions, like sending the Director on leave, undermined the autonomy and independence of the CBI.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court quashed the Central Government's order dated 23.10.2018 that had divested Alok Verma of his duties as Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and sent him on leave. The Court reinstated him as CBI Director but directed that he would not take any major policy decisions until the high-powered selection committee decided his fate. The Court held that any action affecting the CBI Director's functioning must be routed through this committee.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the CBI Director enjoys a protected two-year tenure under Section 4B of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to ensure the agency's independence from external influence. The Court reasoned that this protection would be rendered meaningless if the government could unilaterally curtail the Director's powers before the completion of his term. Accordingly, it held that any decision affecting the functioning or tenure of the CBI Director must receive prior approval from the high-powered committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

Additionally, the Court rejected the Central Vigilance Commission’s (CVC) argument that its supervisory role under Section 8 of the CVC Act empowered it to interfere in the CBI Director’s functioning without committee approval. It clarified that while the CVC can exercise oversight, it cannot bypass statutory safeguards that uphold the Director’s autonomy. By reinstating Alok Verma, the Court underscored the importance of due process and the need to prevent arbitrary executive interference in statutory offices critical to the rule of law.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Alok Verma v. Union of India is a significant reaffirmation of institutional independence and the rule of law. By quashing the Central Government’s decision to divest Alok Verma of his powers without the approval of the high-powered committee, the Court reinforced the statutory protection granted to the CBI Director under Section 4B of the DSPE Act. This decision highlighted the importance of insulating investigative agencies from political or executive interference, especially in the context of internal conflicts or sensitive investigations. The Court’s insistence on due process ensures that key constitutional principles, like checks and balances, are respected even in cases of administrative urgency.

Moreover, the Court’s interpretation of the roles of the Central Government and the Central Vigilance Commission provided clarity on procedural boundaries. It made it clear that while the CVC can exercise supervisory authority, it cannot override legal protections or act unilaterally to interfere with the tenure or powers of the CBI Director. This judgment serves as a precedent that statutory roles and safeguards cannot be diluted through administrative expediency. Ultimately, the ruling is a strong endorsement of transparency, accountability, and the autonomy of statutory offices in a democratic framework.