The Supreme Court has cautioned High Courts and itself against the routine practice of ordering probes by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), emphasizing that such directives should be a measure of last resort, reserved for exceptional situations. The apex court stressed that constitutional courts must exercise judicial restraint to avoid unnecessarily burdening the specialized central agency with cases that do not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances.
In a recent ruling, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had directed a CBI inquiry into alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly secretariats. The Supreme Court reiterated that CBI investigations are an extraordinary measure, justified only when state agencies are compromised, fundamental rights are at stake, or issues of national importance arise. The court noted that recruitment disputes do not ordinarily cross this threshold unless they "shake the conscience of the Court".
The Supreme Court articulated that a CBI probe is justified only when a constitutional court is convinced that the integrity of a process has been compromised, or has reason to believe it may be compromised to a degree that shakes the conscience of the courts or public faith in the justice delivery system. A compelling case must be brought to the court's attention, demonstrating a 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 regarding their ability to conduct a neutral probe.
The Court observed that directing a CBI investigation should not be a matter of routine or merely because a party casts aspersions or lacks confidence in the state police. To invoke this power, the concerned court must be satisfied that the material presented prima facie discloses the commission of offenses and necessitates a CBI investigation to ensure the fundamental right to a fair and impartial investigation. The Supreme Court also stated that in matters relating to recruitment, directing a CBI investigation in routine course would not be appropriate unless the facts brought on record are so abnormal that they shake the conscience of the Court.
Interestingly, this verdict comes shortly after the same bench, led by Justice Maheshwari, ordered a CBI probe into the Karur stampede, which resulted in 41 deaths during a political rally organized by actor-politician Vijay's party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The court, in that instance, noted that the incident had shaken the national conscience and involved a violation of fundamental rights, necessitating a fair and impartial probe. The court also constituted a three-member Supervisory Committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi, alongside two senior IPS officers, to monitor and guide the CBI investigation.
The apparent contradiction between ordering a CBI probe in the Karur stampede case and cautioning against the routine use of such probes highlights the nuanced approach the Supreme Court is taking. While emphasizing that CBI investigations should be reserved for exceptional cases, the court also recognizes situations where a fair and impartial investigation is crucial to upholding fundamental rights and maintaining public trust in the justice system. The Supreme Court’s order in the Karur case is seen as a strong step to maintain judicial oversight over politically sensitive investigations, ensuring neutrality and procedural propriety.
