Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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.” (2022) 17 SCC 781 644
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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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