-
by sayum
02 April 2026 1:11 PM
“Judiciary Must Exercise Restraint – Suo Motu PILs and CBI Probes Demand Foundation, Not Speculation”, On October 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a scathing judgment in Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Others v. Sushil Kumar & Others, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s sweeping direction that had converted a service-related appeal into a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and directed a CBI inquiry into the recruitment process of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat. The apex court ruled that mere suspicion or generalised doubt cannot justify extraordinary constitutional intervention, particularly in the absence of any prayer for such relief by the aggrieved parties.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari, delivering the opinion for the Bench also comprising Justice Vijay Bishnoi, declared in unequivocal terms:
“The directions of the High Court... were issued on basis of some ‘doubt’, ‘assumption’ and ‘inexplicable details’... however, the impugned order fails to specifically point out these ‘doubts’ and ‘details’. Such an approach lacks judicial precision and statutory backing.”
The judgment stands as a clear message that judicial adventurism must not override procedural safeguards and constitutional structure, especially when it comes to criminal investigations by central agencies.
“You Cannot Turn a Service Appeal Into a CBI Case Without Material or Mandate”: Supreme Court Denounces Procedural Impropriety
The case stemmed from recruitment advertisements issued in 2020 by the UP Legislative Council Secretariat for Class-III posts under Advertisement No. 1/2020, later amended in September 2020. Certain unsuccessful candidates filed Writ-A No. 36 of 2021 seeking cancellation of the process and continuation of their contractual appointments. A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on 12.04.2023 partially allowed the plea, directing that:
“Recruitment in the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council should be entrusted to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission and not private agencies.”
A Special Appeal (Defective No. 485/2023) was filed by the Legislative Council challenging this judgment. Simultaneously, another petitioner filed Writ-A No. 140/2022, seeking cancellation of appointments and calling for a high-level inquiry.
While both matters were pending, the Division Bench of the High Court took the extraordinary step of converting the proceedings into a suo motu PIL and, without any such prayer, directed a CBI preliminary inquiry into the entire recruitment process.
The Supreme Court condemned this approach, observing:
“No prayer was made by any of the parties for referring the matter to the CBI. Even before this Court, the original petitioners disclaimed any such request. The directions of the High Court thus stand unsupported by record or logic.”
“CBI Probe Must Be Last Resort – Not Judicial Reflex Based on Hunches”: SC Reaffirms Constitutional Principles on Investigations
Relying on the law laid down in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) and Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik (2022), the Court reiterated:
“The power to order a CBI inquiry must be exercised with great caution and only when there is sufficient material to suggest that the investigation by state authorities would be inadequate or compromised.”
The Court found that the High Court’s direction lacked any factual or legal basis, and held:
“Mere allegations, conjecture, or assumption of illegality is not sufficient to direct an investigation by a central agency. There has to be a compelling, exceptional circumstance where public confidence is truly shaken.”
It emphasized that Article 226 powers are not meant to substitute structured criminal procedure, particularly when the parties themselves do not allege criminal conspiracy.
“A PIL Cannot Be Used to Override an Appeal – SC Flags Jurisdictional Overreach by High Court Bench**
Apart from the unjustified referral to CBI, the Court also rebuked the High Court for procedural irregularity in converting a special appeal into a suo motu PIL, essentially launching a PIL against the order of a Single Judge. Calling this exercise jurisdictionally unsound, the Supreme Court said:
“Entertaining a public interest litigation against the order of a learned Single Judge, through suo motu conversion of a Special Appeal, cannot be said to be in consonance with judicial discipline or the rules.”
It left it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to review and ensure proper registration and listing of PILs in accordance with the procedural norms.
“Supreme Court Restores Constitutional Balance and Procedural Integrity”
Restoring faith in judicial procedure and discipline, the Supreme Court:
Set aside the High Court’s orders dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023
Quashed the suo motu PIL registration
Vacated the direction for CBI preliminary inquiry
Restored the Special Appeal and Writ Petition for regular hearing on merits
Directed that all further proceedings should be conducted uninfluenced by the now-void observations of the High Court
In conclusion, the Court remarked: “We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations. The Division Bench shall decide the matter in accordance with law.”
Date of Decision: October 16, 2025
