Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Suo Motu CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Case

Case Title: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. VERSUS Sushil Kumar & Ors.
This Supreme Court ruling clarified that High Courts cannot direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe merely on “doubt” or “assumption.” Such an extraordinary power under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where material prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, ensuring investigative credibility and protecting fundamental rights.

Facts Of The Case:

The case originated from writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the 2020 recruitment process for Class-III posts in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariats. The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates, alleged the selection was arbitrary, unfair, and involved favoritism by the private external agency conducting the exams. They sought to quash the process and secure fresh recruitment by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. A Single Judge, in April 2023, directed future recruitments to be handled by the Commission but did not order a CBI probe. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Special Appeal. The High Court’s Division Bench, while hearing this appeal alongside another similar writ petition, took suo motu cognizance in August 2023. Without any party seeking it, the Bench registered the matter as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the alleged irregularities, citing doubts about the external agency’s selection. The State and Legislative Council challenged this direction before the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court overstepped by ordering a CBI investigation without a foundational plea or sufficient material warranting such an exceptional step.

Procedural History:

The procedural history began with the filing of Writ-A No. 36/2021 before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the 2020 recruitment process. A Single Judge disposed of the petition in April 2023, directing future recruitments through the state commission but not ordering a CBI probe. The petitioners then filed Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023. During its pendency, the High Court’s Division Bench, in August 2023, clubbed this appeal with a connected writ petition (Writ-A No. 140/2022). Subsequently, in September 2023, the Division Bench took suo motu cognizance, converted the matter into a Public Interest Litigation, and directed a preliminary CBI enquiry. A review petition against this order was dismissed in October 2023. This led to the filing of the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court, which culminated in the impugned judgement.

READ ALSO:Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

Court Observation:

In its observations, the Supreme Court firmly reiterated the established legal principle that a direction for a CBI investigation is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and cautiously under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that such an order cannot be based merely on “doubt,” “assumption,” or “inexplicable details” and must be founded on material that prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It noted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by converting a statutory appeal into a suo motu Public Interest Litigation and ordering a CBI probe in the absence of any such prayer from the parties and without satisfying the high threshold required for such an exceptional step. The Bench underscored that this power should be a measure of last resort, reserved for cases where the facts are so egregious that they “shake the conscience of the Court” or involve systemic failure or high-ranking officials, which was not established in the present recruitment dispute.

Final Decision & Judgement:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the Allahabad High Court dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023. Consequently, the High Court’s direction to register a suo motu Public Interest Litigation and to conduct a preliminary enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was quashed. The Supreme Court remanded Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 back to the High Court’s Division Bench to be heard on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in this judgement. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying recruitment dispute and left it to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the High Court to decide on the registration of the matter as per prevalent rules.

Case Details:

Case Title: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. VERSUS Sushil Kumar & Ors. 
Citation: 2025 INSC 1241
Civil Appeal Nos.: Civil Appeal Nos. 11842, 11843, 11844-11845, and 11846 of 2025
Date of Judgement: October 16, 2025
Judges/Justices Name: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Download The Judgement Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *