In a significant ruling addressing the judicial limits on ordering central investigations, the Supreme Court examined whether a High Court can, on its own motion, convert an appeal into a public interest litigation and refer a recruitment controversy to the CBI without any specific prayer or supporting material. The Court delves into the scope of judicial discretion under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution, reaffirming that the power to direct a CBI inquiry is an extraordinary remedy, one that demands both caution and compelling justification. Read on to know how the Court interpreted this constitutional restraint in the context of recruitment-related disputes.
Brief Facts:
The case arose when petitioners challenged the selection process for posts under a state legislative secretariat, alleging unfairness and arbitrariness. They sought to quash the selection, restrain authorities, conduct a fresh process, continue on contractual posts, and secure regularization. The lower court directed future recruitments through the state subordinate services commission and allowed petitioners to work contractually until regular appointees joined. A review was dismissed, and a special appeal was filed. Another group challenged certain appointments and sought an inquiry into alleged favoritism. The High Court clubbed the matters, converted the appeal into a suo-motu public interest litigation, and referred it to the central investigative agency, which was upheld on review, leading to the present appeals.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Appellants contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by clubbing the special appeal with the writ petition and converting it into a public interest litigation. They argued that referring the matter for an investigation without giving them an opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. They also submitted that the allegations in the petitions did not warrant any investigative enquiry, and therefore, the directions issued by the High Court were not in accordance with the law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondents contended that they had not sought any relief directing an investigation and that their primary prayer was limited to the regularization of their contractual employment. They further submitted that they had not alleged any manipulation or malpractice in the selection process and did not request a preliminary enquiry.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the exercise of power by a High Court to direct a CBI inquiry under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations. The Court reiterated that such directions should not be issued as a routine measure or merely because a party expresses doubt or lack of confidence in the State police. It emphasized that the High Court must be satisfied that the material on record prima facie discloses the commission of a criminal offence and necessitates investigation by a central agency to ensure impartiality, uphold fundamental rights, or address matters of national or systemic importance.
Further, the Court noted, while referring to the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services UP vs. Sahgoo Ram, that, “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.”
The Court observed that in the present matter, neither writ petitioners nor parties in the special appeal had prayed for a CBI investigation. The High Court, however, “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.” The Court highlighted that during the hearing, counsel for the original writ petitioners stated 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.” The Court further observed 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” and that “the impugned order fails to specifically point out these ‘doubts’ and ‘inexplicable details’ that led the High Court to pass such directions.” Emphasizing the legal threshold, the Court concluded that “the prima facie threshold that is required for passing a direction of CBI investigation has not been satisfied.”
The Court emphasized that directing a CBI investigation should be a measure of last resort, warranted only when there is prima facie evidence of a criminal offence, systemic irregularities, involvement of senior officials, or circumstances that could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Mere procedural doubts, assumptions, or speculative concerns are insufficient to justify the intervention of a central agency.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Apex Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders directing suo-motu PIL registration and CBI referral, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits. The High Court Bench is to independently examine the pleadings and reliefs, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations.
Case Title: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11842 OF 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Advocate for Appellant: Sr. Advs. V. Giri, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AORs Adarsh Upadhyay, Ruchira Goel, Advs. Satwik Misra, Shashank Pachauri, Nihar Dharmadhikari, Pallavi Kumari
Advocate for Respondent: AORs Mahesh Thakur, Ramesh Babu M. R., Sahil Bhalaik, Rajiv Yadav, Ruchira Goel, Mahesh Thakur, Advs. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Narveer Yadav, Shruti Sharma, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Gulshan Jahan, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Vibhav Chaturvedi, Narveer Yadav, Akshay Kumar
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
