In the matter of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat vs Respondent Nos. 1–3, the Supreme Court on 17 October 2025 set aside the Allahabad High Court’s direction referring a recruitment-related controversy to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), holding that such extraordinary power under Article 226 must be exercised only in exceptional cases backed by prima facie material and not on mere suspicion or general allegations of unfairness.

A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dealt with the challenge to the High Court’s order which, while hearing a special appeal arising out of recruitment disputes for Class-III posts in the U.P. Legislative Council, converted the case into a Suo motu Public Interest Litigation and directed a CBI preliminary inquiry into alleged manipulation and favoritism in the 2020 selection process.

The Supreme Court clarified that while High Courts possess wide constitutional powers under Articles 32 and 226, directions for CBI investigation cannot be issued routinely, vaguely, or in absence of specific pleadings or evidence. Referring to precedents such as Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521; State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571; and Shree Shree Ram Janki Asthan Tapovan Mandir v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 6 SCC 25, the Court reiterated that a CBI probe must only be ordered where the allegations are grave, have national or institutional ramifications, and the State machinery is demonstrably incapable of ensuring a fair investigation.

The Court found that neither the writ petitioners nor the appellants had sought a CBI investigation, and the High Court had acted on mere doubt and conjecture regarding the identification of private recruitment agencies. The petitioners themselves had admitted before the Supreme Court that they did not seek or support a CBI probe. Holding the High Court’s order to be “jurisdictionally excessive and procedurally irregular”, the Supreme Court observed that recruitment disputes do not automatically justify central investigation unless the irregularities “shake the conscience of the Court” or involve systemic corruption. The Bench cautioned that converting a “special appeal into a Suo motu” PIL and summoning CBI intervention “without foundational facts” undermines the principle of judicial self-restraint and violates the spirit of federalism.