Karnataka HC Seeks State's Reply on CBI Probe Plea in KPSC Recruitment Row
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to file its response on a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged illegalities in recruitments conducted by the Karnataka State Public Service Commission (KPSC) for Group A and B gazetted probationers. The court also seeks response on allegations against Shivashankar S. Sahukar, the suspended chairperson of the KPSC.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order on a petition filed by MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal and the All Karnataka State Students’ Association, Bengaluru.
The petitioners have also sought transfer of the First Information Report (FIR) registered on July 10 based on a complaint by the KPSC against Suma S. Sahukar, daughter of Mr. Sahukar. The FIR alleges that she submitted a false caste certificate showing an annual family income of only ₹40,000, while her father, who was initially appointed as a KPSC member in September 2019 and later became chairman in April 2021, was drawing a basic salary of over ₹2 lakh per month, plus allowances. The petitioners argue that this discrepancy raises serious questions about the integrity of the recruitment process.
In their petition, filed through advocate Girish Bharadwaj, the petitioners contended that the FIR is 'nothing but an exercise in optics — an eye wash intended to create an illusion of institutional responsiveness while leaving the real allegations untouched.' They pointed out that the State police had only given a preliminary inquiry acknowledgment on complaints lodged by the association on July 3 against two KPSC members for corruption and the selection of Mr. Sahukar’s daughters, instead of registering an FIR.
The petitioners argued that the investigation should be taken from State machinery and entrusted to the CBI, given the 'chequered history of controversies that have, from time to time, engulfed the KPSC.' The court observed that 'nothing can be more disquieting, if the allegations ultimately withstand scrutiny, than the projection of such an abysmally low income by the head of an independent constitutional institution. Such an assertion, on its face, does not merely invite disbelief; it raises grave questions touching upon the transparency, credibility and institutional purity of the recruitment process itself.'
The court further noted that 'constitutional institutions derive their legitimacy not merely from the text of the constitution but from the unwavering public confidence that they inspire. Any allegation that casts a shadow upon that confidence warrants examination with the seriousness it deserves.' The court granted the petitioners liberty to move court if the State attempts to constitute and transfer the FIR to a Special Investigation Team during the pendency of the petition.
