The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court's order directing the CBI investigation, while dealing with a bail of an accused in a case related to admission of ineligible candidates through NEET 2021 counselling.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran interfered with the High Court's order only to the extent of the direction for the CBI, as the Uttar Pradesh government made no objection to the bail to accused Dr Ritu Garg.
The Uttar Pradesh government led by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj questioned validity of the directions issued by the single judge of the High Court to the CBI to register a case based on the statement of one Dr Umakant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and conduct investigation in the bail application.
The court noted in the instant case, the bail application was allowed but the High Court, based on a Section 161 CrPC statement and confronting it with the investigating officer, who also stated that the allegations made therein were not verified from the senior officers, the directions for the CBI probe were issued.
"We are afraid that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been brought out from the Section 161 CrPC statement, or a statement made by the investigating officer, who was present in the court, without verifying the records. We are also bound by the precedents which unequivocally hold that there can be no such direction issued in a bail application," the bench said.
The state government also said the Union Government was approached for a CBI inquiry as early as on October 11, 2022, and on April 13, 2023, but there was a communication that it would not be feasible.
As of now, the investigation has considerably progressed and transferring the same at this stage would seriously affect the morale of the State Police, ASG Nataraj said.
The state counsel relied upon the Supreme Court judgements in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010), State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs M Murugesan and another (2020); Seemant Kumar Singh Vs Mahesh PS and others (2023) and Union of India Through Investigating Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Man Singh Verma (2025).
The bench also found that in the State of West Bengal case, it was held that it was permissible for the High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in exercise of the power of judicial review, to protect and enforce fundamental rights in general and Article 21 in particular, to issue directions to the CBI to investigate a case even without the consent of the state government.
However, it was cautioned that this extraordinary power has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice or enforcing fundamental rights, the bench said.
The M Murugesan was a case in which this court unequivocally held that the jurisdiction in a bail application ends, when a bail application is finally decided, either granting or refusing bail.
The said decision was followed in Seemant Kumar Singh and Man Singh Verma; in which latter decision it was noticed that time and again, the act of courts overstepping the limits of its jurisdiction, has clearly been frowned upon, the bench noted.
In its judgment on March 24, 2025, the court thus set aside the impugned to the extent of the directions issued to the CBI.
Since the state did not have an objection to the bail granted in the present appeal, the bench said, "In that circumstance, we have refrained from looking at the facts leading to the investigation; lest that, in any manner, interfere with the investigation."