JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT AND THE LIMITS OF CBI REFERRALS: A REAPPRAISAL BY THE SUPREME COURT

In Legislative Council, U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11842–11846 of 2025, decided on 16 October 2025, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, revisited the delicate balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint in matters involving investigative directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The decision arose from a batch of appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench’s Order directing a suo motu CBI preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in recruitment within the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council Secretariats.

BRIEF FACTS
The controversy began when the Respondents, contractual employees of the U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat, filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court, alleging arbitrariness and favouritism in recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2020. They sought quashing of the selection process and a direction to conduct a fair recruitment as per the U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat Service Rules, 1976.
A learned Single Judge, while relying on Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB [(2021) 4 SCC 631], held that Class-III recruitments in the Legislature should be conducted by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission instead of private agencies and directed necessary amendments to the Recruitment Rules.
The Legislative Council’s review was dismissed, leading to the filing of Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023. While the appeal was pending, another Writ Petition (Writ-A No. 140 of 2022) sought a high-level inquiry into alleged manipulation in the selection of Assistant Review Officers. The Division Bench, clubbing both matters, took suo motu cognizance, ordered a CBI preliminary enquiry and directed the registration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The review of that order was also dismissed on 3 October 2023, prompting the Appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court framed two key questions for adjudication:
1) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court, while hearing a special appeal, could direct registration of a suo motu PIL and order a CBI enquiry without any such prayer or supporting material?
2) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case satisfied the judicially established parameters for directing a CBI investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution?

ANALYSIS
Justice Maheshwari, speaking for the Bench, embarked on a detailed survey of precedents governing judicial directions for CBI investigations. The Court reaffirmed that while High Courts possess the constitutional authority under Article 226 to direct CBI inquiries, such power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations.
Citing Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram [(2002) 5 SCC 521], the Bench reiterated that an order for CBI investigation requires the presence of sufficient prima facie material, not mere suspicion or allegations. The Court also invoked the Constitution Bench ruling in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571], which underscored that such directions must not be issued routinely, but only where credibility of investigation, national ramifications or fundamental rights are at stake.
Further reliance was placed on Shree Shree Ram Janki Asthan Tapovan Mandir v. State of Jharkhand [(2019) 6 SCC 25] and Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik [(2022) 17 SCC 781], both of which stressed judicial restraint in entrusting recruitment or administrative irregularities to the CBI in absence of compelling reasons.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that none of the parties before the High Court had sought a CBI probe. The High Court’s decision was instead based on “doubt, assumption, and inexplicable details” regarding external recruitment agencies, without identifying any specific criminality or prima facie material warranting CBI intervention. Such reasoning, the Supreme Court observed, did not meet the constitutional threshold for directing a central investigation.
The Bench also expressed concern over the procedural impropriety of converting an appellate proceeding into a suo motu PIL. It observed that doing so “would amount to entertaining a public interest litigation against the order of a Single Judge, which cannot be said to be in consonance with procedural propriety.” The Court thus reminded the High Courts that judicial restraint is a hallmark of responsible constitutional adjudication.

CONCLUSION
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned Orders dated 18 September 2023 and 3 October 2023, and remitted the matter to the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court to decide the pending Special Appeal on its own merits. The direction to register a suo motu PIL was also quashed, leaving it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to determine whether such registration aligns with procedural rules.
The Judgment reaffirms that judicial orders must rest on clear legal foundations and adequate factual basis, not conjecture or administrative suspicion. By emphasizing restraint in ordering CBI investigations, the Supreme Court has once again reinforced the federal balance between the judiciary’s supervisory powers and the executive’s investigative domain, ensuring that extraordinary remedies remain exceptional.

KEY TAKEAWAY
The ruling in Legislative Council, U.P. v. Sushil Kumar serves as a cautionary note to constitutional courts: “Doubt is not a substitute for material,” and the majesty of judicial power lies not in its extent but in its disciplined exercise.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Assocaite
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “Legal Aspects of Start-up Funding in India | Complete Guide 2025 | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma”