Central Bureau of Investigation

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the central government’s principal investigation agency, set up on 1 April 1963 by Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution No. 4/31/61-T, which draws its police powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and works under the administrative control of the Department of Personnel and Training.

A central government employee meets it when a corruption allegation becomes a criminal case. The CBI registers a First Information Report or a preliminary enquiry, investigates offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and either recommends prosecution, recommends departmental action, or closes the case. Its supervision is split: the Central Vigilance Commission exercises superintendence over Prevention of Corruption Act investigations under Section 4(1) of the 1946 Act, and the Central Government over everything else under Section 4(2).

The agency is also an employer. On 31 December 2025 it had 6,212 staff in position against a sanctioned strength of 7,300, according to Table 6.14 of the Central Vigilance Commission Annual Report 2025. It recruits Sub-Inspectors at Pay Level 7 through the Staff Selection Commission, takes Inspectors and above on deputation from the police forces, and pays its executive officers a Special Security Allowance of 20% of basic pay.

This page covers the 1946 Act and the 1963 Resolution and the Gauhati High Court’s 2013 challenge to them, the agency’s organisation, the selection, tenure and pay of the Director, state consent, the Vigilance Manual 2026 procedure that runs when the CBI opens a case against an employee, the Agreed List, recruitment, deputation and the allowance, and the 2025 workload figures.

Legal basis: the 1946 Act and the 1963 Resolution

The CBI’s powers come from a statute that does not name it. Section 2(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 lets the Central Government constitute “a special police force to be called the Delhi Special Police Establishment” for investigating offences notified under Section 3 in any Union Territory. Section 3 lets the Central Government notify, in the Official Gazette, the offences the Establishment investigates. The Department of Personnel and Training Annual Report 2024-25, paragraph 12.25, puts the notified list at 110 Central Acts, 54 State Acts and 290 offences under the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to 213 offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Establishment is older than the Act. A Special Police Establishment was set up by executive order in 1941 to investigate bribery and corruption in the War and Supply Department during the Second World War, as paragraph 4.1 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 records. It was given the Special Police Establishment (War Department) Ordinance No. XXII of 1943, which lapsed on 30 September 1946, then the Delhi Special Police Establishment Ordinance No. 22 of 1946, and then the Act, which is Act XXV of 1946. The CBI’s own history page gives 19 November 1946 as the date the Act came into force.

The CBI itself came 17 years later, after the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption reported. Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution No. 4/31/61-T dated 1 April 1963 set up a Central Bureau of Investigation at Delhi with six divisions:

Source: the Resolution’s text as reproduced at paragraph 33 of the Gauhati High Court judgment in Navendra Kumar v. Union of India (6 November 2013); its title is cited at footnote 1 of the Vigilance Manual 2026.

The Establishment thus became one division of a body created by resolution, and the CBI exercises police powers only through it. The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 follows the same pattern: Section 2(c) defines the “Delhi Special Police Establishment” by reference to the 1946 Act and says nothing of the CBI.

The Navendra Kumar challenge

The arrangement was challenged by an employee the CBI had charge-sheeted. On 6 November 2013 a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court (I. A. Ansari and Indira Shah JJ), in Writ Appeal No. 119 of 2008, held at paragraph 179 that “the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE” and so could not be treated as a police force constituted under the 1946 Act. Paragraph 180 quashed the 1 April 1963 Resolution and the appellant’s charge-sheet. The court declined to hold the 1946 Act itself invalid.

The Union and the CBI appealed. The Supreme Court stayed the judgment, and its order of 15 February 2016 in SLP(C) No. 34834 of 2013 granted leave, expedited the hearing and directed that the stay of operation of the impugned judgment continue. With the High Court’s ruling stayed, the CBI has continued to register cases and file charge-sheets.

The Supreme Court’s own later description points the other way. In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, decided on 10 July 2024, a two-judge bench held at paragraph 66 that “the CBI is an organ or a body which is established by and which is under the superintendence of the Government of India in view of the statutory scheme as enacted by the DSPE Act”. That holding came on a preliminary objection in a suit, not in the Navendra Kumar appeals.

Organisation and administrative control

The CBI is attached to the Department of Personnel and Training, not to the Ministry of Home Affairs that created it. Entry 20A under that Department in the Second Schedule to the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 reads: “The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); the Central Bureau of Investigation (the Delhi Special Police Establishment including the Legal Division, the Technical Division, the Policy Division, and the Administration Division); the Food Offences Wing; and Economic Offences Wing.” The entry was last modified by Amendment Series No. 382 dated 3 July 2025, which also inserted entry 20B for the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

The agency’s website lists seven divisions today:

• Anti Corruption Division
• Economic Offences Division
• Special Crimes Division
• Directorate of Prosecution
• Administration Division
• Policy and Coordination Division
• Central Forensic Science Laboratory

The Directorate of Prosecution is the one with a statutory footing. The old Legal Division was reconstituted as a Directorate of Prosecution in July 2001 following the Supreme Court’s directions in Vineet Narain, and Section 4BA, inserted into the 1946 Act by the Schedule to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, now provides for a Director of Prosecution not below the rank of Joint Secretary, appointed on the Central Vigilance Commission’s recommendation for at least two years, and working under the overall supervision and control of the CBI Director.

In the field the CBI ran 16 investigative zones under Joint Directors and 58 investigative branches in 2024-25, according to paragraph 12.24 of the Department’s Annual Report. The Director is also the ex officio head of the National Central Bureau of India, the Interpol office that the CBI has run since 1966 (paragraph 12.12), and the CBI launched the BHARATPOL portal for Interpol requests on 7 January 2025. Training runs from the CBI Academy at Ghaziabad, a 42-acre campus inaugurated on 10 January 1996, and three regional training centres at Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai; the Academy runs an induction course for Deputy Superintendents, Inspectors and other officers joining on deputation, and an orientation course for officers of Superintendent to Joint Director rank joining on deputation. Headquarters has been at the CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi since 1985. The first Director, D. P. Kohli, served from 1 April 1963 to 31 May 1968.

Superintendence: the Commission, the Government and the Lokpal

Three bodies supervise the CBI, each over a different slice of its work. Section 4(1) of the 1946 Act, as substituted by Section 26(b) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, vests superintendence in the Central Vigilance Commission for investigations of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 4(2) leaves superintendence in all other matters with the Central Government. Section 4(3) vests the administration of the Establishment in the Director, who exercises the powers of an Inspector-General of Police that the Central Government specifies.

Superintendence stops at the individual case. The Supreme Court held in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (18 December 1997) that superintendence does not extend to directing how a particular investigation is conducted, and the proviso to Section 8(1)(a) and (b) of the 2003 Act bars the Commission from requiring a case to be investigated or disposed of in a particular manner. The Supreme Court added at paragraph 67 of its 10 July 2024 judgment that this does not dilute the Central Government’s administrative control and superintendence over the Establishment.

The Commission’s working tools, listed at paragraph 6.8 of its Annual Report 2025, are monthly review meetings with the Director, directions under Section 8(1)(d), examination of CBI reports on officers within its jurisdiction, and review of sanction requests pending with ministries. Where the Lokpal refers a complaint to the CBI, Section 25 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 gives the Lokpal superintendence and direction over that investigation, notwithstanding Section 4 of the 1946 Act.

Between 2003 and 2014 Section 6A of the 1946 Act required Central Government approval before the CBI could inquire into a Prevention of Corruption Act offence by an officer of Joint Secretary level and above. A Constitution Bench struck it down in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI on 6 May 2014. Section 17A of the 1988 Act, inserted from 26 July 2018, restored a prior-approval requirement for every public servant where the offence relates to a recommendation made or decision taken in official functions; its working and the split Supreme Court verdict on it are covered under sanction for prosecution and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Director: selection, tenure and pay

The CBI Director is selected by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Section 4A(1) of the 1946 Act, as substituted by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, names the Prime Minister as Chairperson and the Chief Justice of India, or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice, as a member. The DSPE (Amendment) Act, 2014, Act 28 of 2014 assented on 29 November 2014, made two changes:

• it substituted clause (b) so that, where there is no Leader of Opposition, “the Leader of the single largest Opposition Party in that House” sits instead;
• it inserted Section 4A(2): “No appointment of a Director shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy or absence of a Member in the Committee.”

Section 4A(3), inserted in 2003 and left in place in 2013, requires the panel to be drawn from officers of the Indian Police Service on the basis of “seniority, integrity and experience in the investigation of anti-corruption cases”. The Vigilance Manual 2026, at paragraph 4.4.1, still describes the committee in its 2013 form without the 2014 substitution, so the Acts, not the Manual, are the authority on its composition.

Tenure and the five-year cap

Section 4B(1) guarantees the Director at least two years from the date of assuming office, notwithstanding the Director’s service rules, and Section 4B(2) bars a transfer without the selection committee’s previous consent. The DSPE (Amendment) Ordinance No. 10 of 2021, promulgated on 14 November 2021, added two provisos, and the DSPE (Amendment) Act, 2021, Act 45 of 2021 assented on 18 December 2021, replaced it with effect from the same date. The first proviso lets the initial term be extended in public interest, on the committee’s recommendation and for reasons recorded in writing, “up to one year at a time”. The second bars any extension after “five years in total including the period mentioned in the initial appointment”.

A companion statute, the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, Act 46 of 2021, did the same for the Director of Enforcement. In Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, decided on 11 July 2023, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to both 2021 Acts and to the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021, while holding illegal the specific extensions given to the then Director of Enforcement on 17 November 2021 and 17 November 2022.

Pay of the Director and Special Director

The Director’s pay is set by the IPS (Pay) Rules, 2016, not by a CBI-specific order. Schedule II Part (C) places the Director, CBI at Level 17 of the pay matrix, the apex level with a single cell of Rs. 2,25,000, alongside the Director of the Intelligence Bureau and the Directors General of the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the Central Industrial Security Force and the National Security Guard among the Central Armed Police Forces. The Special Director, CBI is at Level 16. The 7th Central Pay Commission, at paragraph 11.35.22 of its report, declined a demand to raise the Director’s pay from the pre-revised Rs. 80,000 fixed apex scale to Rs. 90,000; the Level 17 figure is the revised equivalent of that apex scale. The pay of IPS officers at each grade is set out under IPS salary.

Appointments at the level of Superintendent of Police and above, other than the Director, follow a separate track under Section 4C(1): a committee of the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Chairperson, the Vigilance Commissioners, the Home Secretary and the Secretary (Personnel) recommends both the appointment and any extension or curtailment of tenure, and must consult the Director first.

State consent: Sections 5 and 6

The CBI cannot enter a state on its own initiative. Section 5(1) of the 1946 Act lets the Central Government extend the Establishment’s powers to any area in a state, including railway areas, and Section 6 then provides that nothing in Section 5 enables a member of the Establishment to exercise powers “in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State”. Jurisdiction is therefore automatic in Union Territories and railway areas, and consensual everywhere else.

Most states have given a general consent covering cases against central government employees working in the state, as the CBI’s own FAQ records; outside such a consent, Section 6 requires the state government’s consent for the particular case. Two rules limit the effect of withholding or withdrawing consent:

1. Withdrawal is prospective. In Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116), a three-judge bench held that revocation of consent “can have only prospective operation”. K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, decided on 29 April 1998, applied that to hold that an investigation started by the CBI with consent “cannot be stopped midway by withdrawing the consent”.
2. A court can order an investigation without consent. Paragraph 12.22 of the Department of Personnel and Training Annual Report 2024-25 states that no notification under Section 5 or 6 is required in cases entrusted to the CBI by the Supreme Court or a High Court. In calendar year 2025, 161 of the 1,005 cases the CBI registered were on the orders of constitutional courts (CVC Annual Report 2025, Table 6.1).

West Bengal’s dispute shows the limits of withdrawal. Its general consent of 2 August 1989 was withdrawn on 16 November 2018, and the state then sued the Union under Article 131 over cases the CBI registered in the state afterwards. On 10 July 2024 the Supreme Court (B. R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta JJ) rejected the Union’s objections to maintainability, recorded that its findings “will have no bearing on merits of the suit”, and listed the suit for framing of issues.

Which cases against central employees go to the CBI

The CBI’s powers under a notified offence are concurrent with the state police’s, so the division of work rests on an administrative arrangement set out at paragraph 4.2 of the Vigilance Manual 2026. Cases that “substantially and essentially concern the Central Government employees or the affairs of the Central Government” go to the CBI, even where state government employees are also involved, with the state police kept informed. Cases that substantially concern state government employees or state affairs go to the state police, with the CBI informed. Where a state police investigation involves a central government employee, the request to the central competent authority for sanction for prosecution is routed through the CBI.

Under paragraph 4.2(i), a case that substantially concerns a central government employee goes to the CBI, whether the complaint came from a member of the public, from the department’s Chief Vigilance Officer, on reference from the Central Vigilance Commission under Section 8(1)(d) of the 2003 Act, from the Lokpal, or from the CBI’s own source information. In 2025 the CBI laid 265 traps, in which a public servant is caught accepting a bribe, and registered 81 cases of disproportionate assets.

When the CBI opens a case against an employee

Chapter IV of the Vigilance Manual 2026, issued by the Central Vigilance Commission with a foreword dated 23 July 2026, sets out what happens on each side once the CBI starts work on a central government employee. The sequence below follows its paragraphs.

Preliminary enquiry or regular case

The CBI registers either a Preliminary Enquiry (PE), where the information points to serious misconduct but is not yet enough for a criminal case, or a Regular Case (RC), the FIR, once material disclosing a cognizable offence is available (paragraphs 4.5.1 to 4.5.3). A PE that discloses only matter for departmental action is recommended for closure or for departmental investigation; it is not converted into an RC. In 2025 the CBI registered 797 RCs and 177 PEs, plus 31 Lokpal references.

Under paragraph 4.5.4, as soon as a PE or RC is registered the CBI sends a copy of the registration report or FIR confidentially to the head of department, the administrative ministry and the organisation’s Chief Vigilance Officer, and later tells them the outcome.

Records, documents and priority

The organisation must hand over records the CBI asks for within one month of the request, and must report to the CBI’s Superintendent of Police if it cannot (paragraph 4.6.1(i)). In a disproportionate-assets case the request may cover the pay, allowances, honorarium and other payments the employee drew over the check period. “Top Secret” documents go only to a gazetted officer of the CBI (paragraph 4.6.1(ii)).

Paragraph 4.5.7 directs the CBI to give the highest priority to allegations against officials who are under suspension or about to retire, so that the suspension is kept as short as possible and the report reaches the department before the retirement date. An employee who retires with a case pending faces it under the pension rules; the consequences are covered under withholding of pension.

Prior approval under Section 17A

Where the allegation relates to a recommendation made or decision taken in official functions, the CBI needs the previous approval of the authority competent to remove the employee before any enquiry, inquiry or investigation. The procedure is in Department of Personnel and Training letter No. 428/07/2021-AVD.IV(B) dated 3 September 2021 (Vigilance Manual paragraph 4.9.3). The competent authority must decide within three months, extendable by one month for reasons in writing (paragraph 4.9.5), and paragraph 4.9.4(v) requires the CBI to tell the authority that the approval is “required only to initiate enquiry / inquiry / investigation and not to prosecute”. A trap case on the spot needs no approval. On 31 December 2025, 72 Section 17A references covering 172 officers were pending with competent authorities (CVC Annual Report 2025, paragraph 6.24).

Arrest and deemed suspension

An employee the CBI arrests and holds in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours is deemed suspended from the date of detention under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, whether or not the department issues an order on time. The deemed suspension does not lapse on release; it continues until the competent authority modifies or revokes it, as the Department of Personnel and Training’s consolidated OM of 26 March 2024 records, citing Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar (2003). An arrested employee is separately required to inform the official superior, under OM No. 39/59/54-Ests.(A) dated 25 February 1955.

The report and what follows

When the investigation ends, the CBI recommends one of four outcomes, under paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the Manual:

Source: Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026, Chapter IV, paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8.

A recommendation for departmental action arrives as a paper book under paragraph 4.7.7: the investigation report, a draft article of charge, a draft statement of imputations, lists of witnesses and documents, copies of the statements and documents relied upon, and the employee’s statement with the investigating officer’s comments. The Commission’s first stage advice on a Category A officer follows from that report.

For prosecution, the authority competent to remove the employee must decide on sanction within three months, extendable by one month where the Attorney General or another law officer is consulted. A disagreement between the competent authority and the CBI on sanction is resolved by the Commission under its Circular No. 05/03/15 dated 16 April 2015, and the detailed procedure is in Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026. On 31 December 2025, 521 sanction requests in 201 CBI cases were pending with 51 organisations, 108 of those cases for more than three months (CVC Annual Report 2025, paragraph 6.21). A charge-sheet filed in a criminal court, or a departmental charge-sheet issued on the CBI’s recommendation, is one of the conditions on which vigilance clearance is withheld and a promotion goes into the sealed cover.

The Agreed List and preventive work

The CBI and each organisation keep several lists in common, and an employee on one of them is not told. Paragraph 4.11 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 describes the Agreed List of gazetted officers against whose honesty or integrity there are complaints, doubts or suspicion, prepared by the organisation in consultation with the CBI “to keep a secret watch on them”, under criteria in Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 130/1/66-AVD dated 5 May 1966. Paragraph 4.12 covers the separate list of gazetted officers of doubtful integrity, under Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 105/1/66-AVD-I dated 28 October 1969, which the Chief Vigilance Officer finalises with the CBI and the chief executive.

The preventive side has three further instruments. The CBI may conduct joint surprise checks at suspected points and places of corruption together with the organisation’s vigilance unit (paragraph 4.13). It settles with the CVO or the head of department, at the beginning of each calendar year, an agreed list of points and places of corruption (paragraph 4.15). It also maintains lists of undesirable contact men suspected of corrupt dealings with official agencies (paragraph 4.14). The CVO and the CBI are expected to meet at least once a quarter (paragraph 4.10).

Recruitment and deputation

The CBI fills most of its posts by deputation and only a few by direct recruitment. In 2024-25 it inducted 535 personnel on deputation, 441 of them Constables and 57 Inspectors, and recruited 63 directly: 43 Public Prosecutors, seven Assistant Public Prosecutors, 12 Lower Division Clerks and one Multi-Tasking Staff (Department of Personnel and Training Annual Report 2024-25, paragraphs 12.27 and 12.28). Every post of Superintendent of Police and above, other than the Director, goes through the Section 4C committee.

Sources: Staff Selection Commission notice F. No. HQ-C11018/1/2026-C-1 for the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2026; CBI vacancy circulars No. DPPERS.II/2024/1080 dated 10 May 2024 and No. DPPERS.I/2024/1203 dated 13 May 2024; Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Sections 4A, 4B and 4C.

The two Sub-Inspector and Inspector levels are a 7th Central Pay Commission result. At paragraph 11.35.20 of its report the Commission raised the Sub-Inspector from Grade Pay Rs. 4,200 to Rs. 4,600 and the Inspector from Rs. 4,600 to Rs. 4,800, for parity with Assistant Central Intelligence Officers Grade II and Grade I in the Intelligence Bureau. Those grade pays map to Levels 7 and 8. The Sub-Inspector post and its take-home pay are covered under SSC CGL salary.

The 2024 circulars carry two restrictions. Departmental officers in the direct line of promotion are not eligible for deputation, and a deputationist is not eligible for promotion within the CBI during the deputation. A selected officer who refuses to join is debarred from deputation for the tenure of the post plus the cooling-off period. The general deputation rules for central government govern the rest of the terms, with one exception on allowance, described in the next section.

The Special Security Allowance

CBI officers draw a Special Security Allowance of 20% of basic pay, and it displaces the usual deputation allowance. The 7th Central Pay Commission, at paragraph 8.17.121, rationalised what had been the Special Incident, Investigation or Security Allowance across several agencies and recommended 20% of basic pay for the CBI. At paragraph 8.17.122 it added: “No Deputation (Duty) Allowance will be applicable along with this allowance.”

The government accepted the allowance recommendations by Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 11-1/2016-IC dated 6 July 2017, with revised rates payable from 1 July 2017 (paragraph 6). Serial 163 of Appendix II to that Resolution modified the rates for the Special Protection Group and the National Technical Research Organisation and withdrew the allowance from the Enforcement Directorate from 1 July 2017. It does not mention the CBI, whose own FAQ and 2024 deputation circulars give the rate as 20%.

Source: 7th Central Pay Commission report, paragraph 8.17.121; Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 11-1/2016-IC dated 6 July 2017, Appendix II serial 163.

The CBI’s own FAQ states that “All the executive officers of CBI from the rank of constable to the Director get special allowance” at 20%, and both May 2024 deputation circulars tell applicants they are eligible for it. At entry pay the allowance is worth Rs. 8,980 a month to a Sub-Inspector at Level 7 (20% of Rs. 44,900), Rs. 9,520 to an Inspector at Level 8 (20% of Rs. 47,600) and Rs. 11,220 to a Deputy Superintendent at Level 10 (20% of Rs. 56,100). For an Inspector on deputation the comparison that matters is with deputation allowance, which paragraph 8.17.122 rules out: the officer takes the 20% instead. The 7th CPC’s cut in percentage allowances generally is covered under abolished and rationalised allowances.

The CBI’s year in numbers

The Central Vigilance Commission’s Annual Report carries a chapter on the Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 14 of the 2003 Act, and it is the most detailed public account of the CBI’s work. The figures below are for calendar years; the Department of Personnel and Training Annual Report uses the financial year and its figures cannot be mixed with these.

Source: Central Vigilance Commission Annual Report 2024, Chapter 6; Central Vigilance Commission Annual Report 2025, Chapter 6, Tables 6.1 to 6.3.

The conviction rate excludes cases disposed of for other reasons from the denominator. In 2025 there were 209 such disposals, so the 71.71% is 583 convictions out of 813 judgments on merits, not out of all 1,022. Prevention of Corruption Act cases are a subset: in 2025 the CBI registered 615 of them against 855 public servants, 237 of them gazetted officers, and 7,229 such cases were pending trial on 31 December 2025, 2,856 of them for more than ten years (Tables 6.4 to 6.6). Departmental cases against the CBI’s own staff stood at 21 against Group A officers and 13 against Group B and C officials at the end of 2025 (paragraph 6.25).

The agency’s strength at the end of 2025, from Table 6.14 of the same report:

Source: Central Vigilance Commission Annual Report 2025, paragraph 6.26, Table 6.14, position on 31 December 2025.

The CBI and the Right to Information Act

The CBI is largely outside the Right to Information Act, 2005. A Department of Personnel and Training notification of 9 June 2011, F. No. 1/3/2011-IR, placed it at serial 23 of the Second Schedule, which lists the intelligence and security organisations that Section 24(1) exempts from the Act. The first proviso to Section 24(1) keeps information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations within the Act even for a listed organisation, and the second proviso releases information on human rights violations only with the approval of the Central Information Commission, within 45 days of the request.

Related Articles

• Central Vigilance Commission
• Chief Vigilance Officer
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Sanction for prosecution
• Disproportionate assets
• Vigilance clearance
• Vigilance angle
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
• Whistle Blowers Protection Act
• Preliminary inquiry
• Departmental inquiry
• Charge-sheet and articles of charge
• Inquiry officer
• Presenting officer
• Major and minor penalty proceedings
• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
• Suspension
• Sealed cover procedure
• Withholding of pension
• Immovable property return
• Article 311
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Indian Police Service
• IPS salary
• All India Services
• Intelligence Bureau
• Central Armed Police Forces
• Delhi Police
• Deputation in central government
• Deputation allowance
• Abolished and rationalised allowances under the 7th CPC
• Allowances for central government employees
• 7th Central Pay Commission
• Pay matrix
• Staff Selection Commission
• SSC CGL
• SSC CGL salary
• Right to Information Act

External references

• Central Bureau of Investigation, About us and history: cbi.gov.in
• Central Bureau of Investigation, Frequently asked questions: cbi.gov.in
• Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI Academy: cbi.gov.in
• Central Vigilance Commission, Annual Report 2025: cvc.gov.in
• Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026 (large file, about 63 MB): cvc.gov.in
• Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, consolidated text including Section 26 amending the 1946 Act: cvc.gov.in
• Department of Personnel and Training: dopt.gov.in

References

1. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946), Sections 2 to 6, as amended by Section 26 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, the Schedule to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Act 1 of 2014), the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act 28 of 2014, 29 November 2014) and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act 45 of 2021, 18 December 2021, deemed in force from 14 November 2021).
2. Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution No. 4/31/61-T dated 1 April 1963, establishing the Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. Navendra Kumar v. Union of India, Gauhati High Court, W.A. No. 119 of 2008, decided 6 November 2013, paragraphs 33, 179 and 180; Supreme Court order of 15 February 2016 in SLP(C) No. 34834 of 2013.
4. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, Original Suit No. 4 of 2021, 2024 INSC 502, Supreme Court, decided 10 July 2024, paragraphs 53 to 67 and 84.
5. K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223, decided 29 April 1998, paragraph 23, quoting Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116.
6. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2022, Supreme Court, decided 11 July 2023, paragraph 121.
7. Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026, Chapter IV, paragraphs 4.1 to 4.15.
8. Central Vigilance Commission, Annual Report 2025, Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.6 to 6.26 and Tables 6.1 to 6.14; Annual Report 2024, Chapter 6.
9. Department of Personnel and Training, Annual Report 2024-25, Chapter 12, paragraphs 12.1 to 12.35.
10. Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 24(1) and its provisos, and the Second Schedule as amended by Department of Personnel and Training notification F. No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 9 June 2011.
11. 7th Central Pay Commission report, paragraphs 7.2.50, 8.17.121, 8.17.122, 11.35.20 and 11.35.22; Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 11-1/2016-IC dated 6 July 2017, paragraph 6 and Appendix II serial 163.