Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, J
Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11842 OF 2025|CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11843 OF 2025|CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11844-11845 OF 2025|CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11846 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Giri, Sharan Thakur
Constitutional courts must exercise restraint when directing central agency investigations. Such power is extraordinary, reserved for exceptional cases where prima facie evidence of criminal misconduct exists, and cannot be invoked routinely based on suspicion or doubt, nor by conflating appellate jurisdiction with public interest litigation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 32 and 226 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Power to direct investigation by central investigating agency - Such power is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations - It is not to be exercised in a routine manner or on suspicion, doubt, or subjective lack of confidence in local police - Sufficient material disclosing a prima facie commission of an offence is a mandatory prerequisite. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 21, 22)
(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate jurisdiction should not be conflated with original public interest jurisdiction - Converting appellate proceedings into a public interest litigation without satisfying institutional rules and procedural propriety is deprecated. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged an order directing an inquiry into recruitment processes for public service positions. Potential candidates had initially sought quashing of the selection process, alleging irregularities, but did not request an external central agency's intervention. During the appellate stage, the lower court, based on perceived doubts regarding the empanelment of agencies conducting the recruitment, ordered an inquiry by a central agency and directed the registration of the matter as a public interest litigation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were based on mere assumptions and doubt rather than objective evidence of a prima facie criminal offence. There was no request by the parties for an external investigation. The court reaffirmed that a central agency inquiry constitutes a measure of last resort, justified only when the integrity of the process is compromised to a degree that shakes the conscience of the court.
Issues: Whether the lower court acted within its jurisdiction by directing an inquiry by a central agency and initiating public interest litigation proceedings, and whether the facts on record supported such a measure under established legal standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional power to direct a central agency investigation must be exercised with extreme caution. Vague allegations, 'inexplicable details,' or mere suspicion cannot satisfy the evidentiary threshold required for such an order. Judicial restraint is essential to prevent the overloading of central agencies and to maintain the credibility of local investigative machinery. Converting an appellate proceeding into a public interest litigation without a sound legal foundation is procedurally improper.
Result: Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case history and procedural context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding jurisdiction and natural justice. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. standard for directing cbi inquiries in judicial proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of high court's exercise of power in directing suo motu inquiry. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. judicial restraint and threshold for exceptional cbi investigation orders. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. final order setting aside the impugned directions and remanding for hearing. (Para 24 , 25) |
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 Appeal(s) | Parties | Impugned order |
|---|---|---|
| C.A. No. 11842/2025 | Legislative Council, U.P. and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. | Special Appeal Defective No. 485/2023 |
| C.A. No. 11843/2025 | Legislative Council, U.P. and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. | Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 117 of 2023 in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 |
| C.A. No. 11844-11845/2025 | State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Sushil Kumar and Others | Special Appeal Defective No. 485/2023 AND Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 117 of 2023 in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 |
| C.A. No. 11846/2025 | State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary (Legislative Assembly) and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Singh and Others | Writ-A No. 140/2022 |
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 petition11 Writ-A No. 36/2021. challenging the process of selection of various posts 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.
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) Allo
