Summary
In a special appeal concerning recruitment to the U.P. Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariats, the Allahabad High Court, without any prayer for it, directed the registration of a suo motu PIL and referred the matter to the CBI for a preliminary enquiry on the basis of 'doubt' and unspecified 'inexplicable details' about the external examining agency. The Supreme Court set aside those directions because the prima facie threshold for a CBI enquiry was not met, and asked the Division Bench to decide the special appeal on its merits.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench, while hearing a special appeal against a Single Judge's order together with a connected writ petition, could direct registration of a separate suo motu PIL and order a CBI preliminary enquiry.
- Whether the facts warranted a CBI enquiry under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Provisions considered
- Articles 32 and 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court accepted that constitutional courts may direct a CBI investigation, but held the power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations, on material prima facie disclosing an offence, and not routinely or on mere allegations; the High Court's direction did not meet this threshold. (¶¶ 10, 11, 14, 21, 22, 23)
- Constitution of the Central Bureau of Investigation (Act generally), Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946Referring to State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Court noted that High Courts may direct the CBI, established under this Act, to investigate, subject to self-imposed limitations on such extraordinary power. (¶ 11)
Held
- A direction for a CBI investigation or enquiry is not to be passed routinely or because a party levels allegations or lacks confidence in the State police; the court must examine the pleadings and material and be satisfied that they prima facie disclose the commission of an offence or the involvement of persons, and sweeping remarks are not enough. (¶¶ 14, 21)
- The power is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations, such as where credibility of the investigation is in question, where the matter has national or international ramifications, or where it is necessary to do complete justice or enforce fundamental rights; it is a measure of last resort, typically justified by systemic failure, involvement of high officials or influential persons, or doubts about the local police's neutrality. (¶¶ 14, 21, 22)
- In recruitment disputes, a CBI investigation should not ordinarily be directed unless the facts on record are so abnormal that they shake the conscience of the court. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The High Court's direction rested on 'doubt', 'assumption' and 'inexplicable details' in the external agency's company master data, which it did not specify, while neither the special appeal nor the writ petitions prayed for a CBI enquiry; the prima facie threshold was not satisfied. (¶¶ 19, 20, 23)
- The Court expressed concern that directing registration of a separate suo motu PIL while hearing a special appeal against a Single Judge's order would amount to entertaining a PIL against that order, and left the question of registration under the High Court's rules to the Chief Justice of the High Court. (¶¶ 18, 25)
Result
Appeals disposed of; High Court orders directing a CBI preliminary enquiry, and the review order, set aside; direction to register a suo motu PIL set aside, leaving registration to the Chief Justice of the High Court under its rules; Division Bench requested to decide the special appeal with the connected writ petition on merits, uninfluenced by these observations.