Introduction

This decision addresses the circumstances in which a High Court may direct an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and whether, while hearing an intra-court appeal, it can convert the matter into a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court allowed a batch of appeals challenging orders of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) that (i) referred allegations of recruitment irregularities in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly/Legislative Council to the CBI for a preliminary inquiry, and (ii) directed registration of the matter as a suo motu PIL.

The litigation arose from challenges to the recruitment process notified by Advertisement No. 1/2020 for multiple Class-III posts under the Legislative Council Secretariat and a parallel challenge to the recruitment of Assistant Review Officers in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat. The learned Single Judge, relying on Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021) 4 SCC 631, directed that future Class-III recruitments in the Assembly and Council be conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC), with rule amendments to be made within three months, and permitted existing contractual appointees to continue until regularly selected candidates join.

On special appeal against the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench clubbed the matter with a separate writ petition (Writ-A No. 140/2022) alleging favoritism and manipulation in evaluation and typing results, and—without any party seeking a CBI probe—referred the matter to the CBI for a preliminary investigation and directed that it be registered as a suo motu PIL. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the legality and propriety of these directions.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions dated 18.09.2023 (CBI preliminary inquiry and suo motu PIL registration) and the subsequent review order dated 03.10.2023.
• It reaffirmed that directions to the CBI are an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only upon a clear prima facie foundation; they cannot be issued on mere doubts or assumptions (paras 14, 21–23).
• It emphasized that in recruitment-related controversies, a straightaway CBI referral is ordinarily inappropriate unless the allegations are so egregious and the actors so powerful that State Police investigation would be ineffectual (para 13, relying on Manik Bhattacharya).
• It found that neither the pleadings nor the reliefs sought before the High Court included a prayer for CBI inquiry; even before the Supreme Court, the original writ petitioners disavowed such a relief (paras 17, 19–20, 23).
• It flagged the impropriety of converting an appellate proceeding into a suo motu PIL and set aside that direction, leaving it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider registration under the court’s rules if warranted (paras 18, 25).
• The matter was remitted to the Division Bench to hear the special appeal (and the tagged writ) on merits, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations on the CBI direction (para 25).

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Supreme Court’s reasoning consolidates and applies a consistent line of authority that strictly cabins the circumstances for directing CBI investigations.

• Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521

  Principle: While High Courts have power under Article 226 to direct CBI inquiries, such power must be exercised only when there is sufficient material to reach a prima facie conclusion that a CBI inquiry is warranted; mere allegations in pleadings do not suffice. The Court, relying on Common Cause (1999) 6 SCC 667, reiterated that courts cannot direct the CBI to investigate “whether any person has committed an offence or not” absent a prima facie finding of offence or involvement (para 10 here).

  Influence: This case anchors the prima facie threshold and guards against speculative fishing expeditions. The Supreme Court applied this filter to find that the High Court’s reliance on unspecified “doubts” and “inexplicable details” did not meet the threshold (paras 23–24).

• State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 (Constitution Bench)

  Principle: High Courts/Supreme Court can direct CBI investigation without State consent, but the power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations—e.g., to ensure credibility, in cases with national/international ramifications, or to do complete justice and enforce fundamental rights. Routine referrals would overburden the CBI and undermine its effectiveness (paras 70–71; para 11 here).

  Influence: The judgment’s “self-imposed limitations” doctrine is reinforced (para 21). The Supreme Court echoes the resource and credibility rationale for restraint and applies it in a recruitment context where national ramifications were absent.

• Shree Shree Ram Janki Asthan Tapovan Mandir v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 6 SCC 25

  Principle: CBI is not to be invoked casually. Public order and police are State subjects; the State Police has primary responsibility to investigate offences. CBI entrustment may occur only in exceptional circumstances as per CPDR. Sweeping allegations against “the Government” cannot justify a CBI probe. The High Court should not direct CBI without even a complaint to local police (paras 21–22; paras 12 here).

  Influence: The Supreme Court draws on this federalist caution, underscoring that allegations in this case fell within State Police remit absent compelling reasons to doubt local efficacy (paras 14, 21–22).

• Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, (2022) 17 SCC 781

  Principle: In recruitment controversies, it is ordinarily inappropriate to direct a CBI inquiry at the threshold unless the allegations are “so outrageous” and the perpetrators “so powerful” that State Police investigation would be ineffectual (para 11; para 13 here).

  Influence: The Supreme Court foregrounds this recruitment-specific restraint (para 14), finding no such exceptional features in the present record to justify a CBI referral.

• Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. DSSSB, (2021) 4 SCC 631

  Context: Relied upon by the learned Single Judge to channel future recruitment of Class-III posts through a specialized statutory body (UPSSSC). While not central to the Supreme Court’s CBI analysis, it frames the Single Judge’s systemic remedy, which remains to be tested by the Division Bench on merits.

2) Legal Reasoning Applied by the Supreme Court

• CBI referral requires robust prima facie material, not “doubts”

  The Court held that the High Court’s order rested on mere “doubt,” “assumption,” and “inexplicable details” in the company master data of the external recruitment agency (para 25 of the impugned order, quoted at para 20 here). Crucially, the High Court never identified these details with specificity; the prima facie threshold was not met (paras 23–24).

• Party autonomy and relief sought matter

  Neither writ petition sought a CBI inquiry (paras 15, 17, 19). The original writ petitioners explicitly disclaimed such a relief even before the Supreme Court (para 20). In the absence of pleadings/foundation and a prayer, a CBI referral was unwarranted.

• CBI direction is a “measure of last resort”

  The Court distilled prior precedents into a clear formulation: a CBI direction is justified only when the integrity of the process stands compromised or likely to be compromised to a degree that shakes judicial conscience or public faith. Typical markers include systemic failure, involvement of high-ranking or politically influential actors, or demonstrable inability of local police to conduct a neutral probe (para 22).

• Recruitment cases warrant additional caution

  Echoing Manik Bhattacharya, the Court reiterated that recruitment disputes usually do not justify a CBI referral unless the allegations are extraordinary and State Police would be ineffectual (paras 13–14).

• Judicial restraint and federal balance

  The Court reaffirmed CPDR’s caution that Article 226/32 powers, though wide, carry self-imposed limitations, and that routine CBI referrals risk overburdening the agency (para 21; CPDR para 70). It also underscored that policing is a State subject (Ram Janki), reinforcing the default primacy of State Police investigation (para 12).

• Propriety of converting appeal to suo motu PIL

  The Division Bench ordered registration of a separate suo motu PIL while hearing a special appeal. The Supreme Court considered such action to be inconsistent with “the rules prevalent and demand of propriety,” set aside that direction, and left it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider registration as per rules (paras 18, 25).

3) Impact and Prospective Significance

• Recalibrating the threshold for CBI referrals

  The decision crystallizes and tightens the prima facie threshold for CBI directions, especially in recruitment matters. High Courts must now articulate specific, cogent reasons demonstrably satisfying the “last resort” standard; mere unease with process or generalized allegations of favoritism are insufficient.

• Procedural discipline in PIL conversion

  Appellate proceedings cannot be lightly transformed into suo motu PILs. The judgment underscores institutional propriety: if a matter merits PIL treatment, registration should be routed per High Court rules under the administrative superintendence of the Chief Justice.

• Preserving State Police primacy

  By routing ordinary recruitment allegations to State Police (absent exceptional circumstances), the Court reinforces federal balance and prevents the CBI from being “flooded” with routine disputes, thereby safeguarding the agency’s capacity to handle serious cases.

• Course of the present litigation

  The Division Bench must now decide the special appeal (against the Single Judge’s systemic directions concerning UPSSSC and rule amendments) and the tagged writ on their merits. The Supreme Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the recruitment challenges or on the Single Judge’s substantive directions (para 25).

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 226 and Article 32 powers

  These provisions empower High Courts and the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of rights. They can, in exceptional cases, direct CBI investigations. But the courts impose self-restraints—these powers are not to be used routinely.

• CBI and the DSPE Act

  The CBI derives powers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Ordinarily, CBI investigates with State consent; however, CPDR permits High Courts/Supreme Court to direct a CBI probe without State consent in exceptional cases.

• Prima facie case

  A preliminary showing that, if unrebutted, suggests an offence has occurred and that particular persons are involved. Courts require such a threshold before ordering intrusive measures like a CBI probe.

• Suo motu PIL

  A public interest case initiated by the court on its own motion. This route should be used judiciously and in accordance with High Court rules, usually under the administrative control of the Chief Justice.

• Preliminary inquiry vs. full investigation

  A preliminary inquiry is a pre-FIR, limited fact-gathering exercise to decide whether a full criminal investigation is warranted. Even this step, when entrusted to CBI by court order, demands a solid prima facie basis.

• Class-III posts and specialized recruitment bodies

  Class-III (often clerical/ministerial) posts are generally filled through competitive exams. The Single Judge, relying on Sachin Kumar, favored channeling such recruitment through statutory commissions (like UPSSSC) rather than private agencies, to preserve integrity. The validity of that direction awaits adjudication in the special appeal.

Case Timeline

• 17.09.2020: Advertisement No. 1/2020 issued by the Legislative Council Secretariat; supplementary advertisement dated 27.09.2020.
• Writ-A No. 36/2021: Petitioners challenge the selection process.
• 12.04.2023: Single Judge directs future Class-III recruitment through UPSSSC with rule amendments; contractual appointees to continue till regular recruitment.
• 15.05.2023: Review dismissed.
• Writ-A No. 140/2022: Separate writ challenges ARO recruitment in Legislative Assembly; seeks high-level inquiry for alleged manipulation/favoritism.
• 21.08.2023: Division Bench orders listing of special appeal with Writ-A No. 140/2022; calls for records.
• 18.09.2023: Division Bench directs CBI preliminary inquiry; orders registration as suo motu PIL.
• 03.10.2023: Review of the CBI/PIL order dismissed.
• 16.10.2025: Supreme Court allows appeals; sets aside CBI referral and suo motu PIL registration; remits matters for merits hearing.

Practical Guidance and Benchmarks

When may a CBI direction be justified?

• There is specific, identified material indicating a prima facie commission of an offence and identifiable involvement of persons (Sahngoo Ram; Common Cause).
• State Police’s neutrality or capacity is credibly in doubt, e.g., due to involvement of high-ranking officials or powerful actors; or the matter has broader ramifications (CPDR; Manik Bhattacharya).
• The court articulates reasons that show why a CBI probe is necessary to protect fairness of investigation and public confidence.

Red flags against a CBI referral

• No party has sought a CBI probe; pleadings lack concrete particulars; allegations are generic (as here).
• The court relies on unspecified “doubts” or assumptions without pinpointing material and connecting it to offences/persons (as here).
• Routine recruitment disputes with no extraordinary features suggesting State Police ineffectiveness (as here).

Process points for High Courts

• Avoid converting intra-court appeals into suo motu PILs; if PIL registration is contemplated, follow the High Court’s rules and route through the Chief Justice’s administrative side (para 25).
• If external agency selection for examinations is questioned, identify precise irregularities and assess whether existing State mechanisms (including vigilance or police) suffice before escalating to CBI.

Key Takeaways

• CBI directions are a measure of last resort. Courts must identify specific, compelling reasons grounded in prima facie material; mere suspicion is not enough.
• Recruitment-related allegations rarely justify immediate CBI entrustment unless the allegations are exceptional and State Police investigation would be futile.
• High Courts should not, while hearing an appeal, convert the matter into a suo motu PIL and direct CBI without adherence to internal rules and without a sound factual foundation.
• Federal balance matters: primary responsibility for investigation lies with State Police; CBI is not a default forum for all allegations of irregularity.
• The present judgment does not determine the validity of the Single Judge’s systemic directions (UPSSSC/Rule amendment); those issues remain for the Division Bench on merits.

Conclusion

Legislative Council U.P. v. Sushil Kumar reaffirms—and sharpens—the jurisprudential guardrails around CBI referrals. The Supreme Court makes clear that constitutional courts must practice disciplined restraint: a CBI direction is exceptional, not routine, and demands a clearly articulated prima facie basis indicating offences, identifiable involvement, and circumstances that undermine confidence in State investigation. In recruitment disputes, in particular, courts should be wary of escalating to CBI absent extraordinary features.

The Court also underscores procedural propriety: appellate adjudication is not an avenue to launch suo motu PILs. If a matter raises public interest dimensions, the High Court must proceed in conformity with its rules and under the superintendence of the Chief Justice. By setting aside the High Court’s directives while remitting the core disputes for merits adjudication, the Supreme Court preserves both federal balance and institutional discipline, laying down a structured template for the principled use of extraordinary investigative directions in future cases.