Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow vs. Sushil Kumar

1

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1241
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11842 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22746 of 2023)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11843 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22726 of 2023)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11844-11845 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22970-71 of 2023)
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11846 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 457 of 2024)
STATE OF UP & ANR. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS
VIPIN KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.10.16
14:33:14 IST
Reason:

2
J U D G M E N T
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. In this batch of appeals, the common order dated
18.09.2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of
2023 and Writ-A No. 140 of 2022 along with 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 of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, have been assailed. For the
sake of convenience, the parties in the instant appeals
are outlined below as thus:

3

Since the issues and facts involved in these appeals are
common, hence they are being decided by a common order.
2. For the sake of brevity, facts of C.A. No. 11842/2025
are being adverted to. As borne from records, the
controversy was set into motion when Respondent Nos. 1
1
to 3 (original writ petitioners) filed writ petition
challenging the process of selection of various posts

1
Writ-A No. 36/2021.

4
under the Secretariat of Legislative Council, Uttar
Pradesh as notified vide ‘Advertisement No. 1/2020’ dated
17.09.2020 and supplementary advertisement dated
27.09.2020, inter-alia , contending that the said process
of selection was unfair, unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable
and collusive. The petitioners prayed for the following
reliefs: -


i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the entire
process of selection pursuant to
Advertisement No. 1/2020 dated 17.9.2020 and
Supplementary Advertisement dated 27.9.2020
issued by opposite party No. 1 as contained
in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite
parties not to proceed with the selection
pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2020 dated
17.9.2020 and Supplementary Advertisement
dated 27.9.2020 issued by opposite party no.
1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ

petition.
iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite
parties to hold fresh process of selection
in accordance with the scheme of U.P.
Legislative Council Secretariat Service
(Recruitment and conditions of Services)
th
Rules, 1976 as amended vide 4 Amendment
Rules 2019.

5
iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite
parties to allow the petitioners to continue
to work on their respective posts as per
Scheme of Government Order dated 22.5.1998
contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ
petition and further be pleased to consider
them for regular appointment.
v) Issue any other order or direction which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under
the facts and circumstances of the case in
favour of the petitioner in the interest of

justice.

(vi) Allow the writ petition with costs. ”

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, counter
affidavit was filed and the learned Single Judge relying
upon the judgment of this Court in ‘ Sachin Kumar & Ors
vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) &
2
Ors.’ , vide order dated 12.04.2023 issued the following
directions –
“27. In view thereof, to maintain the public
confidence in the recruitment process in the
Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council
in respect of Class-III posts, the
recruitment should be in the hands of the
specialized statutory recruitment body, and
not in the hands of a selection committee or
a private agency. Therefore, it is directed
that in future all Class-III posts in

2 (2021) 4 SCC 631

6
Assembly and Council are to be filled up by
the selection made by the Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate Services Selection Commission.
In this respect, necessary amendment in the
recruitment rules are to be carried out
within a period of three months from today.
28. The petitioners, who have been given
appointment on contractual basis should be
allowed to work on contractual basis and paid
remuneration accordingly, subject to their
performing duties of the posts, if the posts
are vacant on which they have been working,
till regularly selected candidates come from
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
Commission and join the posts.”

4. Being aggrieved by the said directions, review
3
petition was filed, which was disposed-of vide order
dated 15.05.2023 maintaining the order of the learned
4
Single Judge. Aggrieved, special appeal was preferred by
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is relevant to note, while the
aforesaid special appeal was pending, Writ-A No. 140/2022
was filed by other set of writ-petitioners, inter-alia
seeking relief in nature of certiorari for quashing
entire selection and appointment made on the post of
Assistant Review Officer in Uttar Pradesh Legislative
Assembly Secretariat in pursuance to Advertisement No.

3
Civil Misc. Review Application No. 53 of 2023.
4
Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023

7
1/2020 and also a high-level enquiry into alleged
manipulation and favoritism in selection and appointment.
Vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in special appeal, the
matter was directed to be taken up with Writ-A No.
140/2022. The relevant portion of the order dated
21.08.2023 is reproduced below as thus:
“ xxx xxx xxx
Put up on 24.08.2023 along with Writ-A No. 140/2022,
Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. through Additional
Chief Secretary (Legislative Assembly) and others.
The relevant records shall be produced by Sri Gaurav
Mehrotra, learned Counsel for Legislative Council on
the next date of listing.
xxx xxx xxx ”

5. In furtherance thereto, the High Court by the common
impugned order, referred the matter to the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) for conducting a preliminary
enquiry and to submit a report to the Court within the
time so specified and directed the office to register the
case as suo-motu P.I.L. The relevant portion of the order
is reproduced as thus: -
“(10) Since this Court is vested with the
jurisdiction of P.I.L., therefore the
Court further proceeds to take suo motu
notice in public interest on the aforesaid

8
questions for necessary directions and the
case be listed as suo motu P.I.L. in the
matter of recruitment of Staff in Vidhan
Parishad and Vidhan Sabha, Secretariat,
U.P. in the light of grievance raised in
the Special Appeal and Writ-A No. 140 of
2022, Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. through
Additional Chief Secretary (Legislative
Assembly) and others connected thereto.
ORDER
(11) Having regard to the facts evident from
the record and keeping in view the
aforesaid questions of public importance,
we are of the opinion that the matter be
referred to Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) for conducting a
preliminary enquiry to submit the report
to this Court within a period of six weeks
from the date of this order along with
photocopies of the relevant record.
(12) Office is directed to register the case
separately as suo motu P.I.L. whose title
is as under:
“ Suo Motu in the matter of
Recruitment of staff in Vidhan
Parishad Sabha and Vidhan Sabha,

Secretariat, U.P.”
(13) Let a copy of this order alongwith the
instructions placed before this Court be
registered as part of P.I.L.
(14) The original record supplied to the Court
shall be kept in the sealed cover.
(15) Photocopy of the original record shall be
transmitted to the C.B.I. by the Senior
Registrar of this Court in a sealed cover
to facilitate the preliminary enquiry in

the matter.

9
(16) Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate is appointed as
amicus curiae to assist the Court in the
matter of suo motu P.I.L.
(17) Let the Special Appeal and P.I.L. be
listed before the appropriate Bench in the
first week of November, 2023. ”
5
6. On filing review against the above directions, the
same was dismissed on 03.10.2023 maintaining the order
impugned. Hence, the present appeals as indicated above

in para 1.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel representing the
Legislative Council as well as the State Government,
submits that by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench
by clubbing the Special Appeal with the Writ Petition
wherein constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh
Legislative Assembly Recruitment Rules was challenged and
by converting the said Special Appeal into a Public
Interest Litigation, the Division Bench exceeded from its
jurisdiction to decide the Special Appeal. It is further
urged that without affording the appellant an opportunity

5
Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 117 of 2023 in Special Appeal Defective
No. 485 of 2023.

10
referring the matter to CBI for enquiry, violates
principles of natural justice. He further submitted that
there are no averments in the writ petition or in the
special appeal warranting referral of matter to the CBI
insofar as the allegations specified therein are
concerned. Therefore, direction as issued by the High
Court is not in accordance with law. Reliance in this
regard has been placed on the judgments of this Court in
the cases of Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg.
6
Services UP vs. Sahgoo Ram ; Shree Shree Ram Janki, Asthan
7

Tapovam Mandir vs. State of Jharkhand .

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 (petitioners before the High Court) submits
that they have not asked for any relief directing CBI
enquiry in the matter. Without there being such prayers,
the High Court suo-motu has passed the order. It is urged,
they are working since last about ten years on
contractual basis and their prayer is only to the extent
to regularize them in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative

6
(2002) 5 SCC 521
7
(2019) 6 SCC 25

11
Assembly. It is also contended that they have not made
any allegation of manipulation or malpractice in the
examination and neither pleaded for CBI investigation.

In such circumstances, appropriate orders may be passed.


9. Having considered the submissions and the
controversy involved, it is first necessary to examine
the circumstances in which a CBI inquiry can be directed.
This Court has addressed this issue in a series of
judgments, as outlined below from some of the cases.


10. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services
UP (supra), this Court had the occasion to deal with a
direction of High Court whereby CBI was directed to hold
an inquiry into the allegations made against the then
Minister for Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering
Services in government of Uttar Pradesh. While setting
aside the impugned order therein, following was observed–
“ 5. While none can dispute the power of the High
Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by
CBI, the said power 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 is not sufficient to have such
material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there

12
is a need for the High Court on consideration of
such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the
material before it is sufficient to direct such an
inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is
clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court
in the case of Common Cause [(1999) 6 SCC 667].
This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174
of the Report has held thus: (SCC p. 750, para
174)
“174. The other direction, namely, the
direction to CBI to investigate ‘any other
offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be
sustained. Obviously, direction for
investigation can be given only if an
offence is, prima facie, found to have been
committed or a person's involvement is
prima facie established, but a direction
to CBI to investigate whether any person
has committed an offence or not cannot be
legally given. Such a direction would be
contrary to the concept and philosophy of
‘life’ and ‘liberty’ guaranteed to a person
under Article 21 of the Constitution. This
direction is in complete negation of
various decisions of this Court in which
the concept of ‘life’ has been explained
in a manner which has infused ‘life’ into
the letters of Article 21.”



11. The issue whether the High Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, when can direct the CBI, established under the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, to
investigate a cognizable offence which is alleged to have
taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a

13
State without the consent of the State Government, was
referred for the opinion of the Constitution Bench in
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
8
Rights . This Court while affirming exercise of such
powers by High Courts made following succinct
observations –
“ 70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasize that despite wide powers
conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts
must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations
on the exercise of these constitutional powers.
The very plenitude of the power under the said
articles requires great caution in its exercise.
Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to
CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can
be laid down to decide whether or not such power
should be exercised but time and again it has been
reiterated 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. This extraordinary power must be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations where it becomes necessary to provide
credibility and instill confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have
national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.
Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number
of cases and with limited resources, may find it

8
(2010) 3 SCC 571

14
difficult to properly investigate even serious
cases and in the process lose its credibility and
purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services,
U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya [(2002) 5 SCC 521 : 2002
SCC (L&S) 775] this Court had said that an order
directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only
when the High Court, after considering the
material on record, comes to a conclusion that
such material does disclose a prima facie case
calling for an investigation by CBI or any other
similar agency. We respectfully concur with these
observations. ”

12. In Shree Shree Ram Janki, Asthan Tapovam Mandir
(supra), High Court had issued a direction to CBI to
investigate and to take appropriate action qua
allegations involving illegal transfer of temple trust
property by trust members in collusion with public
officials. This direction was issued in pursuance to a
PIL filed seeking such relief. On challenge, this Court
quashed the impugned direction while observing as
hereunder:

“ 21. We find that the finding recorded by the High
Court that the deity could not transfer its land
in any case is not tenable. The appellant relies
upon statutory provisions in support of its stand
to transfer of land. The sweeping remarks that the
allegations are against the Government and the

15
Board which consist of government functionaries;
therefore, the matter requires to be investigated
by CBI are wholly untenable and such sweeping
remarks against the Government and/or the Board
should not have been made. The functioning in the
Government is by different officers and the
working of the Executive has in-built checks and
balances. Therefore, merely because, permission
has been granted by a functionary of the State
Government will not disclose a criminal offence.
The High Court has thus travelled much beyond its
jurisdiction in directing investigations by CBI in
a matter of sale of property of the deity. Still
further, the High Court has issued directions
without there being any complaint to the local
police in respect of the property of the religious
Trust.
22. It may be kept in mind that the public order
(Entry 1) and the police (Entry 2) is a State
subject falling in List II of Schedule VII of the
Constitution. It is a primary responsibility of
the investigating agency of the State Police to
investigate all offences which are committed
within its jurisdiction. The investigations can be
entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation on
satisfaction of the conditions as specified
therein only in exceptional circumstances as laid
down in State of W.B. [State of W.B. v. Committee
for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC
571] case. Such power cannot and should not be
exercised in a routine manner without examining
the complexities, nature of offence and sometimes
the tardy progress in the investigations involving
high officials of the State investigating agency
itself. ”


16
9

13. In Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik , a direction
was issued by High Court to CBI for conducting an inquiry
while registering a case vis-à-vis allegations of grave
irregularities in West Bengal Teachers Eligibility Test,
2014. Therein, although this Court refused to quash the
impugned directions on account of CBI having proceeded
with such inquiry substantially, an observation was made
that direction of CBI inquiry in recruitment related
controversy was not appropriate. The relevant paragraph
is reproduced as thus:
“ 11. In our opinion, under normal circumstances,
it would not be appropriate to straightaway direct
CBI investigation in a recruitment related
controversy unless, of course the allegations are
so outrageous and the perpetrators of the alleged
offences are so powerful that investigation by the
State Police would be ineffectual. The reasons
given by the learned Single Judge in directing
investigation by CBI at such an early stage of the
proceeding may fall short of the standards laid
down in Sampat Lal [State of W.B. v. Sampat Lal,
(1985) 1 SCC 317]. But considering the submission
of the learned counsel for CBI and the fact that
investigation by the said agency has substantially
progressed, we do not want to stall such
investigation at this stage and wait to see if the
State Police can carry on the same investigation
impartially. We accordingly decline the plea of

9
(2022) 17 SCC 781

17
the petitioners to stay that part of the order
impugned, by which continuance of the
investigation by CBI has been directed. Before we
issue further order in this matter, we direct CBI
to file a comprehensive report as regards the scope
and nature of illegalities they have found in the
subject-recruitment process.”


14. In view of the precedents of this Court referred
hereinabove, it is evident that while issuing directions
to CBI to hold an investigation, pleadings and material
sufficient for CBI inquiry are required to be looked
into. It is further required to be seen that based on
such material, whether the involvement of the persons is
prima facie established. This Court while issuing
directions observed that no inflexible guideline can be
laid down to decide whether or not such power should be
exercised, but it has been reiterated that the order of
CBI investigation or enquiry should not be passed in
routine manner on mere allegations levelled by the
parties. The exercise of such power by the High Court or
by this Court must be made sparingly, cautiously and in
an exceptional situation when credibility of
investigation is in question and to repose confidence in

18
investigation. The Court may exercise such discretion,
where the incident may have national or international
ramifications and with intent to do complete justice or
for enforcing the fundamental rights. Mere sweeping
remarks are not enough to direct for CBI investigation,
until prima facie disclosure of commission of criminal
offence is made out. It is further said that in the
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.

15. For appreciating the legal position set forth above,
it is necessary to assess the pleadings and the prayers
of the writ petitions. The prayers involving Writ-A No.
36/2021 have already been reproduced in para 2
hereinabove and the direction as issued by the learned
Single Judge in para 3 above against which Special Appeal
Defective No. 485/2023 was filed and entertained along
with Writ-A No. 140/2022. However, at this juncture, the
relief sought in Writ-A No. 140/2022 is also required to
be referred for ready reference which is reproduced as

19
under:
“ xxx xxx xxx

i. a writ order and direction in nature of
certiorari Quashing entire selection and
appointment made on the post of Assistant Review
Officer in Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly
Secretariat in pursuance to Advertisement no.
1/2020 dated 07.12.2020 as Contained in ANNEXURE
NO. 1 to this writ petition;
ii. a writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding opposite parties to conduct a high
level inquiry regarding allegations raised in
the present writ petition pertaining to
manipulation in the Mains Written Examination
and typing results and favoritism in the
selection and appointment of Assistant Review
Officers in pursuance to advertisement no.
1/2020 dated 07.12.2020;
iii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding opposite parties to conduct
entire selection process a fresh by involving
agencies.
xxx xxx xxx ”
A bare reading of the prayer makes it clear that the
allegations raised in the writ petition pertained to the
favoritism and manipulation in the result of mains
written examination. On the allegations, quashing of
entire selection and appointment was sought along with a
high-level enquiry. A further perusal of the pleadings
in the writ petition indicate that favoritism was alleged

20
against the external agency, which conducted the
examination and allegedly favored certain set of
candidates.
16. In the said factual conspectus, the key question that
arises for our consideration is (1) whether the Division
Bench while entertaining Special Appeal Defective No.
485/2023 against the order of learned Single Judge along
with Writ-A No. 140/2022 was justified to direct the
office to register a separate case as suo moto PIL and
to hold a preliminary enquiry through CBI asking for a
report within the specified time? (2) Whether the facts
and circumstances of the case warrant a CBI enquiry in
line with the established guidelines of this Court?


17. As discussed above, the dispute was set into motion
when challenge was laid to the selection process of
various posts under the Secretariat of Legislative
Council in Writ-A No. 36/2021. The prime grievance of the
petitioners was of unfairness, arbitrariness and
collusiveness in the selection process. It is pertinent
to note that both the writ petitions did not contain any

21
prayer seeking CBI enquiry in the matter. Learned Single
Judge by a detailed order dated 12.04.2023 disposed-of
the writ petition noting that recruitment should be in
the hands of a specialized agency, rather a private
agency. It was further directed that in future, all the
posts had to be filled by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Services Selection Commission, and necessary amendments
be made in the recruitment rules in this regard. The
review filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed,
and subsequent thereto, Special Appeal No. 485 of 2023
was filed, wherein the impugned order has been passed.

18. It was primarily asserted in the special appeal that
learned Single Judge failed to take note of the large-
scale irregularities, favoritism and nepotism in the
process of selection. In the interregnum, another writ
petition being Writ-A No. 140/2022 was filed asking
identical reliefs along with high level enquiry on the
allegation of manipulation and favoritism. Both the
Special Appeal Defective No. 485/2023 and Writ-A No.
140/2022 were directed to be posted together vide order
dated 21.08.2023 with direction to produce the relevant

22
record. Later, vide order impugned dated 18.09.2023 by
way of interim measure, the Division Bench gave
directions to CBI for conducting the preliminary enquiry
and to submit a report. The office was directed to
register the case as Public Interest Litigation. In view
of the above, it is a matter of concern and required to
be referred that the Division Bench while entertaining
the special appeal against an order of learned Single
Judge, how can direct the office to register the case
separately as suo moto PIL. If such direction is carried
out, it would amount to entertaining a public interest
litigation against the order of learned Single Judge
which primarily cannot be said to be in consonance with
the rules prevalent and demand of propriety. At present,
we are not dealing with this issue in detail and leave
it to be looked into by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the
High Court.
19. Perusing the facts of the case in hand, the Division
Bench, was only considering the challenge to the order
dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. The
appeal was taken up along with Writ-A No. 140/2022

23
involving identical issue. Admittedly, neither of the
parties in the special appeal nor in the writ petitions
prayed for an inquiry by setting up the CBI into motion.
In absence of foundation and such a prayer, what prompted
the Division Bench at appellate stage to direct
registration of PIL by taking suo-motu cognizance and
refer the matter to CBI to conduct preliminary enquiry
assumes significance. To appreciate the same, the record
indicate that the entire controversy revolved around the
process of recruitment of staff in the Secretariat in
Legislative Assembly because it was conducted by external
agencies. The original writ petitioners in sum and
substance challenged the selection process alleging
arbitrariness, unfairness, collusiveness and favoritism
by such agencies. On perusal of impugned order, it
reveals that the Division Bench on the premise of
fairness in public employment and credibility of the
recruitment agency, proceeded to test the entire veracity
of allegations cast upon the selection process.


20. In this regard, the challenge was made by 3
petitioners in Writ-A No. 36/2021 and then before the

24
Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of
2023, which was later tagged with Writ-A No. 140/2022
filed by sole petitioner raising contentious allegations
in the selection process notified for 99 vacancies of 11
cadres. It appears that all the 4 petitioners
participated in the selection process and on being
unsuccessful, challenged the same. Learned Single Judge
disposed-of the writ petition with above directions vide
order dated 12.04.2023. In special appeal, the Division
Bench passed the impugned order. The Division Bench was
swayed on mere doubt on the process adopted for
identification of external agencies to conduct the
examination. The relevant portion of the impugned order
is quoted hereunder:
“9. The letter dated 08.07.2020 directing the
Nodal Officer for identifying the external
recruitment agency to the best of our
understanding restricts the agencies either
empanelled by the State/Public Service Commission
or other institutions dealing with public
examinations for recruitment. We have not been
taken through any correspondence of refusal with
the U.P. Public Service Commission or any other
Subordinate Services Selection Commission or any
institution dealing with employment recruitment
examinations before identification of the five

25
private external agencies whose consideration in
an unnatural way leads us to doubt. On scrutiny of
the company master data with respect to the agency
chosen for recruitment, we came across some
inexplicable details which, prima-facie, satisfy
the Court for a preliminary enquiry by an impartial
agency as regards the identification of external
agency in the present case entrusted the function
of recruitment in public service which in our firm
view cannot be compromised on the hallmark of
fairness. The Court proceeds to frame the
following questions in Public Interest:……”
As evident from above, the Division Bench based its
decision on an assumption of doubt and ordered a CBI
inquiry in the present case, despite not having any
necessary foundation and prayer by either of the parties.
During the course of hearing even before us, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ
petitioners has made a candid prayer that their clients
are not interested for holding any CBI enquiry in the
matter except to grant of relief as prayed in the writ
petition.

21. Be that as it may, it is well settled that directions
for CBI enquiry should not be ordered by the High Courts
or this Court in a routine manner. The jurisprudence, as
developed by this Court through judgements referred

26
above, qua the direction of an investigation by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is well-settled.
It imposes a significant self-restraint on the exercise
of this extraordinary constitutional power under Article
32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
exercise of inherent powers to direct CBI to investigate
must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in
exceptional situations. This Court has consistently
cautioned that a CBI investigation should not be directed
as a matter of routine or merely because a party casts
certain aspersions or harbors a subjective lack of
confidence in the State police. It goes without saying
that for invoking this power, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that the material placed prima facie
discloses commission of offences and necessitates a CBI
investigation to ensure the fundamental right to a fair
and impartial investigation, or where the complexity,
scale, or national ramification of such allegations
demands expertise of central agency.


22. An order directing an investigation to be carried
out by CBI should be treated as a measure of last resort,

27
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. Such compelling
circumstances may typically arise when the materials
brought in notice of the court prima facie point towards
systemic failure, the involvement of high-ranking State
officials or politically influential persons, or when the
local police's conduct itself creates a reasonable doubt
in the minds of the citizenry regarding their ability to
conduct a neutral probe. In absence of such compelling
factors the principle of judicial restraint demands that
the Court must refrain from interfering. In other words,
Constitutional Courts must exercise some degree of
judicial restraint in unnecessarily burdening a
specialized central agency with matters that do not
satisfy the threshold of an exceptional case.


23. What is coming out from the above discussion is that
the directions of High Court that are impugned in the
present appeals were issued on basis of some ‘doubt’,

28
‘assumption’ and ‘inexplicable details’ qua master data
of external agency. However, the impugned order fails to
specifically point out these ‘doubts’ and ‘inexplicable
details’ that led the High Court to pass such directions.
In this context, we are of the opinion that the prima
facie threshold that is required for passing a direction
of CBI investigation has not been satisfied. Furthermore,
all the petitioners before the High Court (Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 herein) have also fairly stated before us
that they have not sought relief for any CBI enquiry
before the High Court.

24. 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.

25. The Division Bench of the High Court is requested to
hear the Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 on its

29
own merits. We also set aside the direction passed in the
impugned order dated 18.09.2023 to register the said case
separately as suo motu PIL, 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.
It is needless to observe that on the facts of the case,
for the purpose of deciding Special Leave Defective No.
485 of 2023 with Writ-A No. 140/2022, we have not
expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The Bench
so assigned, if any, shall independently examine the
pleadings and the reliefs as prayed therein and pass
appropriate orders uninfluenced by any of the
observations made hereinabove. The appeals stand
disposed-of in above terms. Pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………………………,J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]



…………………………………………………,J.
[VIJAY BISHNOI]

New Delhi;
October 16, 2025.