Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow vs Sushil Kumar

2025 INSC 1241 REPORTABLE

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 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.10.16 VERSUS 14:33:14 IST Reason: VIPIN KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS 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:

Civil Parties Impugned order Appeal(s)

C.A. No. Legislative Special Appeal 11842/2025 Council, U.P. and Defective No. Others Vs. Sushil 485/2023 Kumar & Ors.

Legislative Civil Miscellaneous C.A. No. Council, U.P. and Review Application 11843/2025 Others Vs. Sushil No. 117 of 2023 in Kumar & Ors. Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 3

C.A. No. State of Uttar Special Appeal 11844- Pradesh and Defective No. 11845/2025 Another Vs. Sushil 485/2023 Kumar and Others AND Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 117 of 2023 in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023

State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary C.A. No. (Legislative Writ-A No. 140/2022 11846/2025 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

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) Rules, 1976 as amended vide 4th 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) &

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

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

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.

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.”

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

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

5Civil 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.