LexLEGISLATIVE COUNCIL U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS. versus SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 631 : 2025 INSC 1241 Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11842 of 2025) 16 October 2025 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court while entertaining Special Appeal Defective No.485/2023 against the order of Single Judge along with Writ-A No.140/2022 was justified to direct the office to register a separate case as suo moto PIL and to hold a preliminary enquiry through CBI asking for a report within the specified time; (2) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant a CBI enquiry in line with the established guidelines of this Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – CBI inquiry – The dispute was set into motion when challenge was laid to the selection process of various posts under the Secretariat of Legislative Council – The prime grievance was of unfairness, arbitrariness and collusiveness in the selection process – The Division Bench of the High Court gave directions to CBI for conducting the preliminary enquiry and to submit a report – The office was also directed to register the case as suo moto Public Interest Litigation – Correctness: Held: 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 – 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 – In the * Author 632 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports instant case, admittedly, neither of the parties in the special appeal nor in the writ petitions prayed for an inquiry by setting up the CBI into motion – The directions of High Court that are impugned in the present appeals were issued on basis of some ‘doubt’, ‘assumption’ and ‘inexplicable details’ qua master data of external agency – However, the impugned order fails to specifically point out these ‘doubts’ and ‘inexplicable details’ that led the High Court to pass such directions – In this context, this Court is of the opinion that the prima facie threshold that is required for passing a direction of CBI investigation has not been satisfied – Thus, the impugned orders dated 18.09.2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 and 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 stand set-aside – This Court also set aside the direction passed in the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 to register the said case separately as suo motu PIL, leaving it to the discretion of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court to register the said petition in the form as specified in the rules of the High Court. [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25] Constitution of India – Art.226 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – CBI inquiry – Whether directions for CBI enquiry can be ordered by the High Courts or this Court in a routine manner: Held: It is well settled that directions for CBI enquiry should not be ordered by the High Courts or this Court in a routine manner – The jurisprudence, as developed by this Court through judgements, qua the direction of an investigation by the CBI is well-settled – It imposes a significant self-restraint on the exercise of this extraordinary constitutional power u/Art.32 or Art.226 of the Constitution of India – The exercise of inherent powers to direct CBI to investigate must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations – This Court has consistently cautioned that a CBI investigation should not be directed as a matter of routine or merely because a party casts certain aspersions or harbors a subjective lack of confidence in the State police – It goes without saying that for invoking this power, the concerned Court must be satisfied that the material placed prima facie discloses commission of offences and necessitates a CBI investigation to ensure the fundamental right to a fair and impartial investigation, or where
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.