Karnataka High Court Orders SIT Probe into KPSC Recruitment; Lokayukta Seizes ₹29.61 crore in DA Cases

The Karnataka High Court has constituted a court‑monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged irregularities in two KPSC recruitment drives, giving the team 100 days to submit a final report. Within days, the Karnataka Lokayukta police conducted simultaneous searches at 33 locations, uncovering assets worth ₹29.61 crore linked to eight officials. Both actions underscore the judiciary’s expanding role in safeguarding merit‑based recruitment and curbing disproportionate assets in public service.

Judicial Intervention in State Recruitment

The court’s order responds to petitions filed by MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal, the All Karnataka State Students’ Association and activist Manjunath, who alleged nepotistic selection of the KPSC chairperson’s daughter and procedural violations in appointing 400 veterinary officers. By invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court affirmed the principle of equality before law (Article 14) in public employment.

• ▸Petitioners: MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal, All Karnataka State Students’ Association, Manjunath
• ▸Alleged violations: selection of chairperson’s daughter as Industrial Extension Officer; irregularities in 400 veterinary officer posts
• ▸Court’s directive: 100‑day SIT investigation; progress reports every 30 days

The intervention signals that state recruitment bodies like the Karnataka State Public Service Commission must adhere to transparent, merit‑based processes, lest they invite judicial scrutiny that can override administrative discretion.

The Special Investigation Team Mechanism

Rather than delegating the probe to the Criminal Investigation Department or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the bench appointed a SIT headed by Director‑General of Police Alok Kumar, with IPS officers Divya V. Gopinath, Anoop A. Shetty, Kushal Choksey and Kshama Mishra as members. This hybrid arrangement blends police expertise with judicial oversight, ensuring independence while respecting state autonomy.

• ▸SIT head: DGP Alok Kumar (IPS)
• ▸Members: IPS officers Divya V. Gopinath, Anoop A. Shetty, Kushal Choksey, Kshama Mishra
• ▸Timeline: 100 days for final report; interim reports every 30 days

The choice reflects the court’s assessment that the CBI, whose director is appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition (Section 6, Central Bureau of Investigation Act), is not the sole avenue for high‑profile investigations. It also respects the federal balance envisaged in the Constitution, where state agencies retain primary investigative competence unless a central probe is warranted under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Central Agencies vs. State Bodies

The petitioners had sought a CBI probe, citing the agency’s pan‑India jurisdiction over offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and its power to issue search warrants under Section 93 of the CrPC. The court, however, found that entrusting the investigation to the CBI was not the only viable route, emphasizing that state‑level mechanisms, when fortified by judicial monitoring, can fulfil the same constitutional mandate of accountability.

• ▸CBI powers: investigate offences under IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, NDPS Act
• ▸Section 197 CrPC: requires state government consent for central investigations of state offences
• ▸Court’s rationale: neither CID nor jurisdictional police were suitable; CBI not indispensable

This nuanced stance preserves the cooperative federalism model, allowing the state to address corruption while keeping the central agency’s involvement reserved for cases that transcend state boundaries or demand specialised resources.

Lokayukta’s Asset Probes and Accountability

On 22 September, Lokayukta police raided residences, offices and relatives’ premises of eight officials across Bengaluru, Chickballapur, Kalaburagi, Mandya, Kodagu, Dharwad and Bidar. The searches uncovered immovable assets valued at ₹17.98 crore and movable assets worth ₹11.63 crore, totalling approximately ₹29.61 crore. District Registrar Sridevi held the highest individual holding of about ₹6 crore.

• ▸Officials searched: Shivaraju M., H.M. Ranganath (retired), Rajeshwari Babalad, H.R. Ramesh, Kiran Baindur, Darshan Gowda G., Manik Rao, Sridevi
• ▸Assets seized: ₹17.98 crore immovable, ₹11.63 crore movable, total ₹29.61 crore
• ▸Highest individual asset: Sridevi, ≈₹6 crore

These actions demonstrate the Lokayukta’s capacity to enforce the constitutional guarantee of a corruption‑free administration (Article 21 read with Article 14) and to act as a deterrent against the accrual of disproportionate assets by public servants.

Institutional Implications and Way Forward

The dual thrust of judicially‑mandated SIT scrutiny and aggressive Lokayukta raids signals a tightening of accountability frameworks in Karnataka. By anchoring investigations in constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness, the High Court has set a precedent for other states confronting recruitment scandals. Simultaneously, the Lokayukta’s asset recovery underscores the need for systematic asset‑declaration mechanisms and real‑time monitoring.

Future reforms could include statutory clarification of when a CBI probe becomes mandatory, perhaps via an amendment to Section 197 CrPC, and the establishment of an independent oversight committee for state commissions to pre‑empt irregularities. Strengthening inter‑agency data sharing between the Lokayukta, police and the CBI would further close investigative gaps, ensuring that meritocracy and probity remain the twin pillars of public service.

law-justice