Legal Review and Analysis of Council U P Lucknow & Ors vs Sushil Kumar & Ors 2025 INSC 1241
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Legislative Council U.P., Lucknow & Ors. vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1241
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
This judgment extensively deals with the following legal provisions and precedents:
The Constitution of India:
Article 226: The power of High Courts to issue certain writs.The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Governs the constitution and powers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Key Legal Precedents Cited:
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services UP vs. Sahngoo Ram, (2002) 5 SCC 521
State of W.B. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 (Constitution Bench)
Shree Shree Ram Janki, Asthan Tapovam Mandir vs. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 6 SCC 25
Manik Bhattacharya vs. Ramesh Malik, (2022) 17 SCC 781
3. Basic Judgment Details
This batch of appeals challenged a common order from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The original dispute pertained to writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates challenging the selection process for various posts under the Secretariat of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, alleging the process was unfair, arbitrary, and collusive. A Single Judge of the High Court had disposed of the petitions by directing that future recruitment for such posts be conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission.
Aggrieved parties filed a Special Appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court, while hearing this appeal along with another connected writ petition, took suo motu cognizance, registered the case as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the recruitment process. It is this direction of the Division Bench that was challenged before the Supreme Court.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
The Central Legal Issue
The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, was justified in directing a CBI investigation into a recruitment process suo motu, especially in the absence of a specific prayer from the petitioners and without a prima facie finding of criminal offence based on sufficient material.
In-Depth Analysis of the Court's Reasoning
A. The Exceptional Nature of Directing a CBI Investigation
The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the well-settled legal principles governing the direction of a CBI investigation by constitutional courts. The Court conducted a thorough review of its past judgments and distilled the following core tenets:
The power under Article 226 to direct a CBI inquiry is not to be exercised as a matter of routine or merely because allegations have been levelled against the local police or state authorities.
Such an order is an extraordinary power that must be used sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations.
The Court must be satisfied that the material on record, on consideration, prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and necessitates a CBI investigation to ensure a fair and impartial probe.
This power is typically invoked to provide credibility and instill public confidence in investigations, particularly in cases involving national or international ramifications, high-ranking officials, or where the state machinery itself is suspect.
B. Applying the Law to the Facts: The Absence of a Prima Facie Case
The Court then applied these stringent principles to the facts of the present case. It made several critical observations:
No Prayer for CBI Inquiry: The original writ petitioners had not prayed for a CBI investigation. Their prayers were limited to quashing the selection process and requesting a "high-level enquiry." The respondents (original petitioners) candidly submitted before the Supreme Court that they were not interested in a CBI probe.
Lack of Sufficient Material: The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order was based on "doubt," "assumption," and "inexplicable details" regarding the master data of the external agency that conducted the exam. The impugned order failed to specify what these doubts and details were or how they prima facie disclosed a criminal offence.
Not an Exceptional Situation: The Court held that a dispute concerning a recruitment process, involving allegations of favoritism and manipulation against a private agency, did not per se constitute the kind of exceptional situation warranting the immediate intervention of the CBI. The Court cited Manik Bhattacharya (supra), which cautioned against directing CBI investigations in recruitment controversies unless the allegations are "so outrageous" and the perpetrators "so powerful" that a state police investigation would be ineffectual.
Improper Conversion to PIL: The Supreme Court also expressed concern over the Division Bench's act of converting a statutory special appeal against a Single Judge's order into a suo motu PIL. The Court found this procedure questionable and left it to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the High Court to examine its propriety as per the prevalent rules.
Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023. The Court issued the following consequential directions:
The direction for a CBI preliminary enquiry was quashed.
The direction to register the case as a suo motu PIL was set aside.
The matter was remanded back to the Division Bench of the High Court with a request to hear the Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 along with Writ-A No. 140 of 2022 on their own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the Supreme Court's judgment.
The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations regarding the recruitment process.
5. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: According to the Supreme Court's judgment in Legislative Council U.P. vs. Sushil Kumar (2025 INSC 1241), under what circumstances can a High Court direct a CBI investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution?
A. Whenever allegations are made against a state government functionary.
B. Routinely in all recruitment-related disputes to ensure fairness.
C. Sparingly and only in exceptional situations where the material on record prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and an impartial probe is necessitated.
D. Whenever the petitioners in a case specifically plead for such an investigation.
C. Sparingly and only in exceptional situations where the material on record prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and an impartial probe is necessitated.
Question 2: In the aforementioned case, which of the following was a key reason for the Supreme Court to set aside the High Court's direction for a CBI enquiry?
A. The CBI refused to take up the investigation.
B. The State Government had already completed its enquiry.
C. The original writ petitioners had not prayed for a CBI enquiry, and the High Court's order was based on "doubt" and "assumption" without specifying prima facie material disclosing an offence.
D. The Supreme Court found that the High Court Single Judge had already conducted a thorough investigation.
C. The original writ petitioners had not prayed for a CBI enquiry, and the High Court's order was based on "doubt" and "assumption" without specifying prima facie material disclosing an offence.
Blog Posts
