Karnataka High Court Mandates Framing of Rules for Land Grabbing Court Appointments, Citing Lack of Transparency

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to frame appropriate regulations and guidelines for the selection and appointment of members to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts within three months. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, in a significant ruling, held that the current process, which lacks any defined selection criteria beyond minimum qualifications, is arbitrary, non-transparent, and violates the fundamental rights to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The court allowed a writ petition filed by Devanand Puttappa Nayak, a retired District Judge, who had challenged the selection process after applying for the post of a Judicial Member in the Special Court.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mr. Nayak, challenged a public notice issued by the Government of Karnataka in July 2025 inviting applications for the posts of Chairperson, Judicial Member, and Revenue Member of the Special Court. He contended that neither the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, nor the associated Rules of 2017 prescribe any procedure or criteria for selection among multiple eligible candidates. This absence, he argued, renders the entire process arbitrary and susceptible to discretionary appointments, undermining the rule of law.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Submissions: Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajagopal, representing the petitioner, argued that a selection process without defined criteria is inherently unfair and violates the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law (Article 14) and equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16). He submitted that the State had abdicated its duty by leaving the selection entirely to the discretion of the appointing authority, keeping candidates in the dark about how their merits would be assessed.

State's Defence: Learned Advocate General Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the State, countered that the petition was not maintainable. He argued that the Act itself ensures the appointment of highly qualified individuals (retired judges and senior civil servants) and that the absence of separate recruitment rules does not imply arbitrariness. He described the roles as "pleasure appointments" and asserted that the judiciary should not direct the executive to frame rules, as it falls within the legislative domain.

Court's Rationale and Legal Precedents

Justice Kinagi, in his detailed order, found merit in the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that transparency is a cornerstone of public appointments. The court heavily relied on several landmark Supreme Court judgments to underscore its reasoning.

On Transparency in Recruitment: The court cited Renu and others v. District and Session Judge, Tishazri , where the Supreme Court held that advertisements for public posts must specify the rules or procedure for selection to prevent arbitrariness. The judgment noted:

> "The advertisement must specify the number of posts available... The qualification and other eligibility criteria... should be Explicitly provided... The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in the absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken."

On Judicial Independence: The High Court distinguished the State's reliance on an older judgment by highlighting the evolving jurisprudence on judicial appointments. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwar Rao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye , the court reinforced the principle of judicial primacy in appointments to maintain the separation of powers. The judgment quoted:

> "The executive is a litigating party in most of the litigation and hence cannot be allowed to be a dominant participant in judicial appointments."

The court concluded that the failure to prescribe any selection criteria was a "dereliction of duty on the part of the State" and resulted in an infringement of fundamental rights.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a clear directive to the State of Karnataka.

Order: The Respondents are directed to complete the exercise and frame appropriate guidelines or regulations for the selection and appointment to the posts of Chairperson, Judicial Member, and Revenue Member of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

This judgment sets a crucial precedent for appointments to tribunals and special courts in the state, reinforcing that the government cannot rely solely on minimum eligibility criteria. It mandates the establishment of a transparent, fair, and merit-based selection process, thereby strengthening the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.