In a writ petition filed before the Karnataka High Court directing allegations against the Chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) that he had not merely presided over the selection process but had himself participated in it in a manner that enabled the selection of two of his own daughters, who had claimed the benefit of reservation under Category 3B, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna asked for the State’s reply while granting liberty to the petitioners to move the matter in case the State attempts to constitute an SIT for the same.
The petitioners contended that the eligibility under Category 3B was founded upon the twin criteria of caste and income, and that the income certificates produced before the KPSC allegedly disclosed that the Chairman’s income to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum, which facilitated the claim under the reserved category. It was submitted that a complaint dated 03-07-2026 was subjected to a preliminary enquiry which culminated in an LPT report, after which the information was shared with KPSC. Subsequently, KPSC itself lodged a complaint, which resulted in registration of a crime under Sections 336(2), 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The petitioners contended that the registration of the said crime was only to create an illusion of institutional responsiveness while urging the investigation to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It was also submitted that the State may constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to diminish public concern.
The Court stated that the present circumstances strike at the very heart of constitutional governance and that the allegations had the potential to erode the sanctity of a constitutional institution entrusted with one of the most solemn public functions, i.e., recruitment of meritorious candidates into the civil services of the State.
It was stated that nothing could be more unsettling than the projection of such an abysmally low income by the head of an independent constitutional institution. It was said that such an assertion does not only invite disbelief, but raises grave questions touching upon the transparency, credibility, and institutional purity of the recruitment process itself. Stating that constitutional institutions derive their legitimacy from the confidence that they inspire, the Court said that any allegation casting a shadow upon that confidence warrants examination with the seriousness it deserves.
The Court directed the petitioners to furnish complete sets of petition papers to the counsels representing the respondents and meanwhile, granted them liberty to move the matter in case of need or in case of any attempt made by the State to constitute and transfer it to an SIT. Lastly, the Court asked for the State’s response to be placed before it.
The matter is now listed on 29-07-2026.
