Supreme Court on Judicial Limits for Ordering CBI Enquiry in Recruitment Matters.

The Supreme Court of India set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order that had referred the recruitment process of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council Secretariats to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a preliminary enquiry. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a CBI probe suo motu in a recruitment dispute without any specific prayer, material evidence, or prima facie case indicating criminality.

The Bench reiterated that while High Courts possess the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to order a CBI investigation, such power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances. It cannot be invoked on mere suspicion, apprehension, or conjecture. The Supreme Court clarified that employment or recruitment-related matters ordinarily fall within the administrative or disciplinary domain and should not be converted into public interest litigations unless gross illegality or mala fide is established on record.

1. The High Court of Allahabad, while hearing a special appeal and a connected writ petition relating to the 2020 recruitment process in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council Secretariats, suo motu converted the matter into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and directed a CBI preliminary enquiry.
2. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that no pleadings, evidence, or prayer for a CBI probe existed and that the High Court had transgressed the limits of its appellate jurisdiction.
3. The respondents supported the High Court’s direction, citing the need for transparency and fairness in government recruitments.

1. The Supreme Court held that High Courts cannot direct a CBI investigation unless there is cogent material suggesting prima facie commission of a cognizable offence or failure of state machinery.
2. It relied upon precedents such as State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571, Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services UP v. Sahngoo Ram (2002) 5 SCC 521, and Shree Shree Ram Janki, Asthan Tapovam Mandir v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 6 SCC 25*.
3. The Bench observed that the High Court’s conversion of an appellate proceeding into a suo motu PIL and the consequent direction for CBI investigation were contrary to judicial discipline and amounted to judicial overreach.
4. The Supreme Court further directed that administrative action, if warranted, may be initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court to address procedural concerns.

1. Article 226, Constitution of India – Power of High Courts to issue writs.
2. Article 32, Constitution of India – Remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights.
3. Judicial precedents on CBI enquiry jurisdiction:
4. State of W.B. v. CPDR (2010) 3 SCC 571
5. Sahngoo Ram v. State of U.P. (2002) 5 SCC 521
6. Shree Shree Ram Janki Mandir v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 6 SCC 25

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Allahabad High Court’s orders dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023, and held that constitutional courts must exercise restraint and adhere to self-imposed limitations while invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to direct CBI investigations, especially in recruitment or administrative matters.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1241

Case: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari

Civil Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12345 of 2024)