Holding

A direction to the CBI for investigation may be issued only when prima facie material demonstrates a systemic failure or involvement of high‑ranking officials, which was not established in the present case.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council’s recruitment process for staff was challenged on grounds of unfairness, arbitrariness and collusiveness, leading to writ petitions and a special appeal. The High Court, while hearing the special appeal, directed a suo motu public interest litigation and ordered a preliminary enquiry by the CBI, despite no party requesting such investigation. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s direction to involve the CBI was justified under established jurisprudence. It held that a CBI investigation is an extraordinary measure that should be ordered only when prima facie material shows a systemic failure or involvement of high‑ranking officials, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders directing the CBI enquiry and the registration of a separate PIL, and remitted the special appeal for fresh consideration without expressing any view on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in directing a CBI preliminary enquiry and registering the matter as a suo motu public interest litigation in the absence of a specific prayer for such investigation.
Whether the facts of the case satisfy the prima facie threshold required for a CBI investigation as per the Court’s established guidelines.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court while entertaining Special Appeal Defective No.485/2023 against the order of 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 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. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

Subjects

RecruitmentSelection processArbitrarinessUnfairnessCollusivenessCBI inquiryDirection to CBIArticle 226Public Interest LitigationJudicial restraint

Judgment

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 631 : 2025 INSC 1241

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors.
v.
Sushil Kumar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 11842 of 2025)
16 October 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
(1) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court while entertaining
Special Appeal Defective No.485/2023 against the order of 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.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 – CBI inquiry – The dispute was set
into motion when challenge was laid to the selection process
of various posts under the Secretariat of Legislative Council –
The prime grievance was of unfairness, arbitrariness and
collusiveness in the selection process – The Division Bench
of the High Court gave directions to CBI for conducting the
preliminary enquiry and to submit a report – The office was
also directed to register the case as suo moto Public Interest
Litigation – Correctness:
Held: An order directing an investigation to be carried out by CBI
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 – 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 the

* Author
632 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

instant case, 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 – The directions of High Court that are impugned in the
present appeals were issued on basis of some ‘doubt’, ‘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, this Court is of the opinion that the
prima facie threshold that is required for passing a direction of CBI
investigation has not been satisfied – Thus, 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 – This Court
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 register the said petition in the form as specified in the
rules of the High Court. [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25]

Constitution of India – Art.226 – Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 – CBI inquiry – Whether directions
for CBI enquiry can be ordered by the High Courts or this
Court in a routine manner:
Held: 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, qua the direction of an investigation by the CBI is
well-settled – It imposes a significant self-restraint on the exercise
of this extraordinary constitutional power u/Art.32 or Art.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. [Para 21]
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 633

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

Case Law Cited
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
[2010] 2 SCR 979 : (2010) 3 SCC 571 – followed.
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services UP v. Sahgoo
Ram (2002) 5 SCC 521; Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan
Tapovam Mandir v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 INSC 609 : [2019]
8 SCR 137; Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik (2022) 17 SCC
781 – relied on.
Sachin Kumar & Ors v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection
Board (DSSSB) & Ors. [2021] 2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631 –
referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

List of Keywords
Recruitment; Process of selection of various posts; Arbitrary process
of selection; Unfairness in selection process; Collusiveness in the
selection process; CBI inquiry; Direction to CBI to investigate; Doubt;
Assumptions; Article 226 of Constitution; Exceptional situation;
High-ranking State officials; Politically influential persons; Justice
delivery system.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11842 of
2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2023 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SAD No. 485
of 2023.
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 11843, 11844-11845, and 11846 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Upadhyay, Satwik Misra, Shashank
Pachauri, Nihar Dharmadhikari, Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Ms. Ruchira
Goel.
634 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Advs. for the Respondents:
Ramesh Babu M. R., Mahesh Thakur, Ranvijay Singh Chandel,
Vibhav Chaturvedi, Narveer Yadav, Akshay Kumar, Ms. Shruti
Sharma, Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik
Arora, Shivam Mishra, Rajiv Yadav, Ratnesh Sharma, Ujjwal Kumar,
Ms. Ruchira Goel, Mahesh Thakur, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Vibhav
Chaturvedi, Narveer Yadav, Akshay Kumar.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

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:

Civil Parties Impugned order
Appeal(s)
C.A. No. Legislative Council, Special Appeal Defective
11842/2025 U.P. and Others Vs. No. 485/2023
Sushil Kumar & Ors.
C.A. No. Legislative Council, Civil Miscellaneous Review
11843/2025 U.P. and Others Vs. Application No. 117 of
Sushil Kumar & Ors. 2023 in Special Appeal
Defective No. 485 of 2023
C.A. No. State of Uttar Pradesh Special Appeal Defective
11844- and Another Vs. Sushil No. 485/2023
11845/2025 Kumar and Others
AND
Civil Miscellaneous Review
Application No. 117 of
2023 in Special Appeal
Defective No. 485 of 2023
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 635

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

C.A. No. State of U.P. Through Writ-A No. 140/2022
11846/2025 Addl. Chief Secretary
(Legislative Assembly)
and Others Vs. Vipin
Kumar Singh and
Others

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 to 3 (original writ petitioners) filed
writ petition1 challenging the process of selection of various posts
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

1 Writ-A No. 36/2021.
636 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(Recruitment and conditions of Services) Rules, 1976
as amended vide 4th Amendment Rules 2019.
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) & Ors.’2, 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 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,

2 (2021) 4 SCC 631
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 637

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

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 petition3 was filed,
which was disposed-of vide order dated 15.05.2023 maintaining the
order of the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved, special appeal4 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. 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: -

3 Civil Misc. Review Application No. 53 of 2023.
4 Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023
638 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“(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
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.
(16) Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate is appointed as amicus
curiae to assist the Court in the matter of suo motu
P.I.L.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 639

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

(17) Let the Special Appeal and P.I.L. be listed before the
appropriate Bench in the first week of November,
2023.”
6. On filing review5 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 State and Mr. Sharan Thakur,
learned senior counsel for the Legislative Council, 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 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. Services UP vs. Sahgoo Ram6; Shree Shree Ram Janki,
Asthan Tapovam Mandir vs. State of Jharkhand7.
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 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.

5 Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 117 of 2023 in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023.
6 (2002) 5 SCC 521
7 (2019) 6 SCC 25
640 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.”
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 641

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

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 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 Rights8. 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 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

8 (2010) 3 SCC 571
642 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 643

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

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.”
13. In Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik9, 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 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.”

9 (2022) 17 SCC 781
644 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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;
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 645

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

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 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 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
646 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 647

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

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 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 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
648 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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, 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 649

Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

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’, ‘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 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
650 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan