Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011842-011842 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 39617/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law (Article 226, DSPE Act, List II entries) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The power of a High Court under Article 226 to direct an investigation by CBI is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only when pleadings and material on record disclose a prima facie case of offence that the State police cannot impartially investigate. Merely casting doubts or raising unpleaded allegations does not justify a suo motu PIL conversion or CBI referral. In recruitment disputes, absent “outrageous” facts or involvement of powerful actors, courts must refrain from routine central‐agency probes to protect federal balance and judicial restraint. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | The Court reiterated that Article 226 powers to direct a CBI investigation are extraordinary, citing self‐imposed limitations from Common Cause and Sampat Lal; emphasized federal balance under List II police entry; adopted cautionary dicta that central‐agency probes be exceptional; and reaffirmed that prima facie material must exist before overriding State police jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondents challenged the 2020 selection process for various Class III posts in the UP Legislative Council Secretariat as unfair and collusive. The Single Judge directed future recruitment by UP SSSC and allowed existing contractual appointees to continue. On appeal, the High Court clubbed the Special Appeal with another writ, converted it into a suo motu PIL, and referred the matter to CBI for preliminary enquiry. The Supreme Court found no unpleaded or prima facie allegations justifying CBI direction, quashed the impugned orders, and remitted the case to the High Court to decide on merits. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All High Courts and subordinate courts exercising Article 226 jurisdiction |
| Overrules | Division Bench order of Allahabad High Court dated 18.09.2023 referring Special Appeal to CBI enquiry and registering suo motu PIL |
| Follows | State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court underscores that CBI investigations on Article 226 petitions are a measure of last resort and cannot be ordered as a matter of routine.
- High Courts must identify prima facie material demonstrating commission of a cognizable offence and a reasonable apprehension of biased local police inquiry before directing CBI probes.
- A suo motu conversion of an ordinary appeal into Public Interest Litigation, without party prayers or statutory foundation, exceeds appellate jurisdiction.
- Recruitment‐related grievances, even if alleging unfairness by private agencies, do not automatically justify CBI inquiry absent “outrageous” manipulations or involvement of powerful actors.
- Lawyers should invoke these guidelines to challenge or defend orders referring recruitment disputes to central agencies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Extraordinary Nature of CBI Powers
Article 226 allows High Courts to direct CBI enquiries under the DSPE Act only in exceptional circumstances. Citing Common Cause and Sahgoo Ram, courts must be satisfied of prima facie offence and need for impartial central probe. - Federal Balance and Police Jurisdiction
Police (Entry 2) is a State subject under List II; State investigation is primary. Central intervention is justified only if local police are demonstrably unable or unwilling to investigate impartially. - Judicial Restraint and Prima Facie Threshold
Mere allegations, doubts, or unpleaded contentions do not meet the prima facie threshold. Courts must exercise restraint, avoiding routine CBI referrals that could overburden central agency. - Limits on Suo Motu PIL and Appellate Jurisdiction
Converting a Special Appeal into a suo motu PIL without statutory basis or party prayers is beyond the High Court’s jurisdiction. Appellate courts should confine to issues and reliefs raised by the parties. - Reaffirmation of Precedents
Followed guidelines from State of W.B. v. CPDR, Shree Shree Ram Janki, and Manik Bhattacharya regarding central‐agency probes. Concluded that no prima facie material or power to convert appeal into PIL existed in this case.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Legislative Council & State of U.P.)
- The High Court erred in converting a Special Appeal into a suo motu PIL without statutory authority or party prayers.
- No averments in the writ petitions or appeal justified a CBI enquiry; directing CBI violated principles of natural justice by denying them a hearing.
- The impugned orders exceeded Article 226 jurisdiction and federal scheme of police administration.
Respondents (Original Writ Petitioners)
- They did not seek CBI investigation; their sole prayer was for quashing the selection process and regularisation of contractual service.
- Allegations focused on arbitration and collusion, not on criminal offences warranting CBI enquiry.
Factual Background
Respondent‐petitioners filed Writ-A No. 36/2021 challenging the 2020 advertisement for recruitment to Class III posts in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat, alleging an unfair and collusive selection process. The Single Judge quashed parts of the recruitment scheme, directed future Class III hires via UPSSSC, and allowed existing contractual incumbents to continue. On Special Appeal, the Allahabad High Court clubbed that appeal with Writ-A No. 140/2022 (a similar challenge in the Assembly Secretariat), suo motu registered a PIL, and referred the matter to CBI. The Supreme Court held that no prima facie ground or prayer warranted a CBI probe, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the appeal to the High Court on merits.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226, Constitution of India: High Court’s writ jurisdiction includes issuing directions for investigation, but must be exercised sparingly.
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Framework for CBI’s jurisdiction; central‐agency intervention requires strict conditions.
- List II, Seventh Schedule: Police (Entry 2) and public order (Entry 1) are State subjects; federal balance limits central interference.
- Judicial Precedents: Common Cause (1999), Sahgoo Ram (2002), State of W.B. v. CPDR (2010), Shree Shree Ram Janki (2019), Manik Bhattacharya (2022) collectively define the threshold and contours for CBI referrals under Article 226.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reinforces established guidelines on CBI referrals under Articles 32 and 226.