'CBI Probe Not Routine Remedy’: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on October 16, 2025, said that an order directing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation should be reserved as a measure of last resort, as it set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which converted an appeal into a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to investigate alleged irregularities in appointment to various posts in the UP Legislative Council.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi emphasized that directing a CBI investigation should not be done routinely or simply because a party casts aspersions or harbors a subjective lack of confidence in the State police.

"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,'' the bench said.

Court emphasised that for invoking this power, the concerned court must be satisfied that the material placed prima facie discloses the commission of offenses 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 the expertise of a central agency.

"Such compelling 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," the bench said.

In absence of such compelling factors, the principle of judicial restraint demands that the court must refrain from interfering, the court underscored. 

"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,'' the bench said.

The matter before the Supreme Court arose from the process of selection to various posts under the Secretariat of Legislative Council, Uttar Pradesh, following advertisements issued on September 17 and 27, 2020.

Writ petitions were initially filed in the Allahabad High Court, alleging that the selection process was unfair, unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and collusive. They sought a high-level enquiry into alleged manipulation and favoritism in selection and appointment. The high court then referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for conducting a preliminary enquiry and submitting a report to the court.

Considering the appeal filed by the Secretariat of the UP Legislative Council, the Supreme Court noted that the initial writ petitions did not contain any prayer for a CBI investigation. The single judge of the high court had originally disposed of the matter, noting that recruitment should be in the hands of a specialized agency rather than a private agency. It was directed that in future, all the posts had to be filled by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission.

The Supreme Court expressed its concern regarding the high court's subsequent actions, observing, "It is a matter of concern and required to be referred that the division bench while entertaining the special appeal against an order of 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 single judge which primarily cannot be said to be in consonance with the rules prevalent and demand of propriety".

Court noted the division bench was swayed by a mere doubt on the process adopted for the identification of external agencies to conduct the examination.

The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the high court's 2023 orders. Court asked the division bench of the high court to independently examine the pleadings and the reliefs as prayed therein and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the Supreme Court's decision.

Case Title: Legislative Council UP Lucknow & Ors Vs Sushil Kumar & Ors

Order Date: October 16, 2025

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi