Supreme Court Restricts High Court's Power to Direct CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Disputes

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard appeals challenging a Division Bench order of the Allahabad High Court that had converted a selection dispute into a suo motu public interest litigation and directed a preliminary enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appeals arose from challenges to the recruitment process under Advertisement No. 1/2020 for various Secretariat posts in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and related petitions alleging unfairness and collusion in selection.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court orders dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 that had referred the matter to the CBI and directed registration as a suo motu PIL. The Court held that directions for a CBI inquiry were not warranted on the record before the High Court because neither the writ petitions nor the special appeal contained pleadings that met the prima facie threshold for such an extraordinary measure. The Court emphasised judicial restraint in invoking central agency investigations and observed that such powers must be exercised “sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further recorded that “the prima facie threshold that is required for passing a direction of CBI investigation has not been satisfied.”

Background The dispute began when three petitioners challenged the selection process notified by Advertisement No. 1/2020 and a supplementary advertisement, alleging the recruitment was “unfair, unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and collusive.” The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court had directed that future Class-III posts be filled by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission and permitted contractual incumbents to continue pending regular selections. Review of that order was dismissed and a Special Appeal was filed. Separately, another writ petition challenged alleged manipulation in the mains examination and sought quashing of appointments and a high-level inquiry. The Division Bench clubbed the matters, framed public interest questions, converted the files into a suo motu PIL, and ordered a CBI preliminary enquiry and sealed transmission of records. The Supreme Court found that neither the pleadings nor the prayers in the writs sought CBI intervention and that the High Court’s decision rested on unspecified “doubts” and “inexplicable details” in the agency master data without identifying prima facie offences. The Court therefore set aside the impugned orders, left the question of PIL registration to the Chief Justice of the High Court under prevailing rules, and directed the Division Bench to hear the Special Appeal on merits without being influenced by earlier observations. The appeals were allowed; no opinion was expressed on the merits of the recruitment challenge and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: C.A. Nos. 11842–11846 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 22726/2023, 22746/2023, 22970–22971/2023 and SLP(C) No. 457/2024) Case Title: Legislative Council, U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (and State of U.P. & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar & Ors.) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): V. Giri, Senior Counsel (for State); Sharan Thakur, Senior Counsel (for Legislative Council) For the Respondent(s): Names of counsel for respondents not specified in the reported judgment; Dr. L.P. Mishra appointed as amicus curiae.