KPSC Vet Officer Scam, Dharmasthala Murder Probe and J‑K Teacher Dismissal: A Test of Selective Prosecution

The CID has uncovered a ₹92 lakh money trail linking candidates, intermediaries and a former KPSC Controller of Examinations in a veterinary officer recruitment scam. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court has ordered a fresh investigation into the 2012 Dharmasthala rape‑murder, while Jammu & Kashmir’s government invoked Article 311(2)(b) to terminate a teacher accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Together these episodes raise pressing questions about selective prosecution and the constitutional safeguards that curb bias.

The KPSC Vet Officer Scam and the Question of Unequal Enforcement

The CID’s probe identified 40 candidates questioned, of whom 29 were named in the FIR. Intermediaries such as Basavaraj Kannale, Pawan and Maruti facilitated the leak of examination questions to candidates including Siddharth, Raj Mohammed and Chaitra. Financial forensics traced deposits ranging from ₹1 lakh to ₹10 lakh between January and February 2026, amounting to a total of ₹92 lakh. The money was funneled into an account at Om Lakshmi Souharda Cooperative Bank, Tilakwadi, and a Kotak Mahindra Bank account held by Balu Reddy, both of which have been frozen.

• ▸₹92 lakh traced to two bank accounts (Om Lakshmi Co‑op Bank, Kotak Mahindra)
• ▸40 candidates questioned; 29 named accused in FIR
• ▸Former KPSC Controller Gyanendra Kumar Gangwar linked to the network

The selective targeting of a handful of aspirants, while thousands of other candidates sit untouched, invites scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates equality before the law. If the investigation disproportionately focuses on politically connected candidates, the courts may invoke Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the charge sheet on grounds of selective prosecution.

Dharmasthala Murder Re‑investigation: Judicial Remedy for Procedural Lapses

On 21 September 2026, a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court of India—Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva—ordered a fresh probe into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17‑year‑old near Dharmasthala, Karnataka. The lone accused, Santosh Rao, had been acquitted by a CBI court in June 2023, but the victim’s mother persisted with a writ petition after the father’s death. The Court mandated completion of the new investigation within three months and a police report to the concerned court.

• ▸Fresh investigation ordered within three months (Sept 2026)
• ▸Victim: 17‑year‑old; accused Santosh Rao acquitted June 2023
• ▸Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva

The order underscores the Court’s supervisory role under Article 21, ensuring that procedural lapses do not deny substantive justice. By directing a reinvestigation, the judiciary signals that any bias—whether in the original inquiry or in the selection of suspects—must be corrected, reinforcing the principle that the state cannot arbitrarily shield the innocent or target the vulnerable.

J&K’s Use of Article 311(2)(b): A Precedent for Selective Dismissal

Jammu & Kashmir’s elected government invoked Article 311(2)(b) to terminate Khalid Hussain, a teacher accused in a prolonged Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act case. The order not only dismissed him with immediate effect but also barred any future government employment in the state. Hussain faces charges under Sections 61(2), 65(1), 90, 91, 92 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and multiple provisions of the POCSO Act. While the government cites child‑safety concerns, critics argue that the dismissal bypasses the procedural safeguards normally required under Article 311, raising the spectre of selective prosecution.

• ▸Dismissal invoked Article 311(2)(b); future employment barred
• ▸Charges: BNS 2023 §§ 61(2), 65(1), 90‑92; POCSO §§ 4, 6, 8, 10, 17
• ▸Teacher suspended in August 2026, remains in judicial custody

If the state applies Article 311(2)(b) only in high‑profile cases while ignoring similar offences by officials of its own party, the affected individuals may invoke Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code to stay prosecution on grounds of “reasonable apprehension of bias,” a doctrine crystallised in the State of Bihar judgment (2015).

Judicial Tools to Counter Selective Prosecution

Indian jurisprudence equips courts with two principal mechanisms to curb bias. Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a stay of prosecution where the accused demonstrates a reasonable apprehension of bias, often supported by comparative data on prosecutorial patterns. Complementarily, Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers higher courts to quash proceedings that are frivolous, oppressive, or stem from selective enforcement, as affirmed in K. S. Venkatesh v. State of Maharashtra (2015). The Law Commission’s Report 241 (2015) further recommends a statistical test for selective prosecution, urging disclosure of decision‑making matrices by investigating agencies.

• ▸Section 197: stay of prosecution on bias grounds
• ▸Section 482: quashment of oppressive or selective proceedings
• ▸Law Commission Report 241 (2015): statutory test for selective prosecution

When applied consistently, these safeguards preserve the constitutional promise of equality and prevent the state from weaponising its prosecutorial discretion for political or personal ends.