‘Chandigarh: Punjab govt on Tuesday justified its decision to hand over anti-drug activist Parminder Singh Jhota’s murder probe to the CBI while simultaneously fighting in court against the agency’s corruption probe linked to CM Bhagwant Mann’s OSD Rajbir Ghuman and five others.Responding to queries about the state govt challenging the high court order handing over the corruption probe against CM Mann’s OSD Rajbir Ghuman to CBI, while itself referring Jhota’s murder to the central agency, finance minister Harpal Singh Cheema said: “The previous Congress govt had revoked the CBI’s general jurisdiction in Punjab. The case (against CM’s OSD) was an instance of ‘political targeting by the BJP,’ which we will fight in courts and among people. In contrast, referring the activist’s killing to the CBI was an ‘administrative’ decision.”Asked if the Punjab govt was now in a way reviving the CBI’s jurisdiction in the state, Cheema said, “No, the probe has been referred to the CBI as a specific single case. This decision has been taken after due consultation with the state’s legal team about the issue of CBI’s barred jurisdiction.”In the petition filed before Supreme Court challenging high court’s order for a CBI investigation into the case linked to the CM’s OSD, the Punjab govt had contended that the CBI has no general (blanket) jurisdiction in Punjab. The state govt argued that since general consent was revoked in Nov 2020, the central agency cannot directly register FIRs or initiate probes without specific state permission or adherence to mandatory statutory protections.It was the previous Congress govt that had withdrawn the general consent granted to the CBI to investigate cases in the state, effectively requiring the CBI to take permission from the state govt on a case-to-case basis.Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, the CBI needs “general consent” from a state govt to operate and investigate cases freely within that state. Many opposition-ruled states—including Punjab, under a previous govt—withdrew this blanket consent years ago to block direct, unvetted CBI entry.The CBI registered an FIR against Ghuman and five others on the directions of the high court to investigate corruption allegations. In its plea to the apex court, the state govt argued that high court’s directive bypassed mandatory legal protections. It noted that the high court ordered an FIR into the administrative decisions of public servants without obtaining the prior approval/sanction required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
