An Order Directing Investigation To Be Carried Out By CBI Should Be Treated As A Measure Of Last Resort: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that directions for CBI enquiry should not be ordered by the High Courts or the Supreme Court in a routine manner.
Justice J K Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that an Order directing an investigation to be carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be treated as a measure of last resort.
The Court emphasized thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the common Order of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed, “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. 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 added that in absence of such compelling factors, the principle of judicial restraint demands that the Court must refrain from interfering. It further remarked that the 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.
Senior Advocates V. Giri and Sharan Dev Singh Thakur represented the Appellants, while AOR Mahesh Thakur represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondents filed a Writ Petition challenging the process of selection of various posts under the Secretariat of Legislative Council, Uttar Pradesh as notified vide an advertisement. They contended that the said process of selection was unfair, unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable, and collusive. During the pendency of the said Petition, counter affidavit was filed and the Single Judge relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sachin Kumar & Ors v. Delhi c (DSSSB) & Ors (2021).
The Judge directed that the recruitment should be in the hands of the specialized statutory recruitment body, and not in the hands of a selection committee or a private agency. Being aggrieved, the Respondents filed a Review Petition and the impugned Order was maintained. Thereafter, Special Appeal was filed and the High Court referred the case to the CBI for conducting a preliminary enquiry and to submit a report to the Court within the time so specified and directed the office to register the case as suo-motu PIL (Public Interest Litigation). On filing review against the directions, the same was dismissed and hence, the Appeals were filed before the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “In view of the precedents of this Court referred hereinabove, it is evident that while issuing directions to CBI to hold an investigation, pleadings and material sufficient for CBI inquiry are required to be looked into. It is further required to be seen that based on such material, whether the involvement of the persons is prima facie established.”
The Court was of the view that mere sweeping remarks are not enough to direct for CBI investigation, until prima facie disclosure of commission of criminal offence is made out.
“A bare reading of the prayer makes it clear that the allegations raised in the writ petition pertained to the favoritism and manipulation in the result of mains written examination. On the allegations, quashing of entire selection and appointment was sought along with a high-level enquiry. A further perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition indicate that favoritism was alleged against the external agency, which conducted the examination and allegedly favored certain set of candidates”, it noted.
The Court reiterated that directions for CBI enquiry should not be ordered by the High Courts or the Supreme Court in a routine manner.
“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 also observed.
The Court added 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 the complexity, scale, or national ramification of such allegations demands expertise of central agency.
Conclusion
Coming to the facts of the case, the Court said that the directions of High Court that are impugned in the 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, we are of the opinion that the prima facie threshold that is required for passing a direction of CBI investigation has not been satisfied”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Orders, and requested the Division Bench to hear Special Appeal on its own merits.
Cause Title- Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1241)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates V. Giri, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AORs Adarsh Upadhyay, Ruchira Goel, Advocates Satwik Misra, Shashank Pachauri, Nihar Dharmadhikari, and Pallavi Kumari.
Respondents: AORs Mahesh Thakur, Ramesh Babu M. R, Sahil Bhalaik, Rajiv Yadav, Ruchira Goel, Mahesh Thakur, Advocates Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Narveer Yadav, Shruti Sharma, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Gulshan Jahan, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Vibhav Chaturvedi, Narveer Yadav, and Akshay Kumar.
