CBI Inquiry Permissible Only in Exceptional Circumstances; Not Justified in Recruitment Disputes: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Allahabad High Court order directing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariats. The Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by converting a pending special appeal into a suo motu public interest matter and ordering a CBI probe without supporting material or any such request from the parties. The Bench stated that a CBI investigation is an extraordinary measure, permissible only in rare cases where State investigative agencies are compromised, fundamental rights are affected, or issues of national importance arise, which were not established in this recruitment dispute.
The dispute arose from challenges to the recruitment process for various posts in the Secretariat of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council, initiated through advertisements dated September 17 and September 27, 2020. The writ petitioners alleged that the selection process was arbitrary, unfair, and collusive, and sought quashing of the recruitment, a direction to halt further proceedings, and an order to conduct fresh recruitment under the relevant service rules. The petitioners also requested continuation of their contractual employment and consideration for regular appointment.
A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court directed that all future Class III recruitments in the Legislative Assembly and Council be conducted through the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, with amendments to recruitment rules within three months. The petitioners’ review application was dismissed, prompting the filing of a special appeal.
Separately, another writ petition challenged the same recruitment process, alleging favoritism and manipulation in examinations and requesting a high-level inquiry. The Division Bench, hearing both matters together, converted the proceedings into a suo motu public interest litigation and directed a preliminary enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ordering submission of a report within six weeks.
The appellants, including the Legislative Council and the State of Uttar Pradesh, contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a CBI inquiry without any specific pleadings, evidence, or request from the parties, and without providing an opportunity of hearing. They relied on precedents such as Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services UP v. Sahgoo Ram and State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights. The respondents submitted that they had not sought a CBI investigation and that their grievance related solely to the fairness of the recruitment process and their contractual employment status.
The Supreme Court observed that the power of a High Court to direct a CBI inquiry “can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry.” It recorded that “it is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings” and that such directions must follow consideration of evidence establishing a prima facie case.
Referring to State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Bench stated that “such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police.” It noted that the power must be used “sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations.”
The Court further recorded that “in matters relating to recruitment, it would not be appropriate to direct CBI investigation in routine course unless the facts brought on record are so abnormal that shake the conscience of the Court.”
Upon examining the impugned order, the Bench stated that the High Court had directed a CBI inquiry “on basis of some ‘doubt’, ‘assumption’ and ‘inexplicable details’ qua master data of external agency,” but had “failed to specifically point out these ‘doubts’ and ‘inexplicable details’ that led the High Court to pass such directions.”
It also observed that “none of the parties in the special appeal nor in the writ petitions prayed for an inquiry by setting up the CBI into motion” and that “the prima facie threshold that is required for passing a direction of CBI investigation has not been satisfied.”
The Court recorded that a CBI inquiry “should be treated as a measure of last resort, justified only when the Constitutional Court is convinced that the integrity of the process has been compromised or has reasons to believe that it may get compromised to a degree that shakes the conscience of Courts or public faith in the justice delivery system.”
The Supreme Court concluded: “In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeals stand allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.09.2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 and order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 117 of 2023 in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 by the High Court stand set-aside.”
“The Division Bench of the High Court is requested to hear the Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 on its own merits. The direction passed in the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 to register the said case separately as suo motu PIL [is] set-aside, leaving it to the discretion of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court to look into the prevalent rules of the High Court and to register the said petition in the form as specified in the rules.”
“We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case… The appeals stand disposed-of in above terms.”
Case Title: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1241
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 11842–11846 of 2025
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi
