Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow vs Sushil Kumar 2025 INSC 1241 - CBI Investigation
Constitution of India - Article 32,226- CBI Investigation -CBI investigation should not be directed as a matter of routine or merely because a party casts certain aspersions or harbors a subjective lack of confidence in the State police. For invoking this power, the concerned Court must be satisfied that the material placed prima facie discloses commission of offences and necessitates a CBI investigation to ensure the fundamental right to a fair and impartial investigation, or where the complexity, scale, or national ramification of such allegations demands expertise of central agency. (Para 21) An order directing an investigation to be carried out by CBI should be treated as a measure of last resort, justified only when the Constitutional Court is convinced that the integrity of the process has been compromised or has reasons to believe that it may get compromised to a degree that shakes the conscience of Courts or public faith in the justice delivery system. Such compelling circumstances may typically arise when the materials brought in notice of the court prima facie point towards systemic failure, the involvement of high-ranking State officials or politically influential persons, or when the local police's conduct itself creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the citizenry regarding their ability to conduct a neutral probe. In absence of such compelling factors the principle of judicial restraint demands that the Court must refrain from interfering. In other words, Constitutional Courts must exercise some degree of judicial restraint in unnecessarily burdening a specialized central agency with matters that do not satisfy the threshold of an exceptional case. (Para 22)
Case Info
- Coram: J.K. Maheshwari, J.; Vijay Bishnoi, J..
- Judgment date: October 16, 2025.
- Case name: Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. (with connected appeals including State of U.P. & Anr. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors.; State of U.P. & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar & Ors.).
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1241.
Caselaws and Citations
- Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521.
- Shree Shree Ram Janki, Asthan Tapovam Mandir v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 6 SCC 25.
- State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571.
- Common Cause, (1999) 6 SCC 667 (para 174 cited).
- State of W.B. v. Sampat Lal, (1985) 1 SCC 317 (standard referenced in Manik Bhattacharya discussion).
- Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, (2022) 17 SCC 781.
- Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. DSSSB & Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 631.
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
- List II (State List), Schedule VII: Entry 1 (Public Order) and Entry 2 (Police).
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (CBI jurisdiction framework).
- U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1976, as amended by 4th Amendment Rules 2019.
- References to recruitment via U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) and U.P. Public Service Commission (contextual, not statutory citation).
“An order directing an investigation to be carried out by CBI should be treated as a measure of last resort."#SupremeCourt reiterates that CBI investigation should not be directed as a matter of routine or merely because a party casts certain aspersions or harbors a subjective… https://t.co/tXBTe0f31i pic.twitter.com/NTJukMBclX
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) October 16, 2025
