1. Challenge to the validity of a post-facto state enactment regularizing public service recruitment previously annulled by constitutional courts due to rampant corruption and nepotism. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. PARDIWALA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Srinivasa T. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Karnataka And Ors. Etc. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 13989 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023)
Decided On : 29-10-2026
Important Points
The legislature cannot enact a validation law to nullify final judicial judgments or legitimize a recruitment process found by courts to be fundamentally tainted by corruption, as such actions violate the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997
Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022
Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Validation Act - Validity of legislation seeking to override judicial decisions - When a recruitment process is found to be tainted by corruption and nepotism and the cancellation thereof is affirmed by Constitutional Courts, a subsequent validation act cannot nullify such judicial decisions or legitimize a corrupted process (Paras 9, 11, 13).
(B) Constitutional Law - Rule of Law - Judicial Review - The legislature cannot sit in appeal over a decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court. While it is open to change the law in general by changing the legal basis, it is not open to set aside an individual decision inter parties affecting their rights and liabilities through a subsequent legislation, as such an exercise would sound the death knell of the rule of law (Paras 15, 16).
Facts of the case:
Recruitment for Group 'A' and 'B' officer posts was cancelled by the State Government after an inquiry revealed rampant corruption and nepotism in the selection process. The cancellation was subsequently upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Following these judgments, the State enacted a validation act to regularize the appointments of selected candidates. This act and the appointments made under it were challenged by unsuccessful candidates.
Findings of Court:
The validation act is unconstitutional because it attempts to annul the final judgments of constitutional courts and seeks to legitimize a recruitment process that was fundamentally corrupted. Equity cannot be claimed by selected candidates when their appointment is based on a recruitment declared tainted by courts and effectuated through a stillborn legislation.
Issues: Whether a legislative act can validate a recruitment process that was previously set aside by courts on grounds of corruption and nepotism, and whether such legislation can effectively nullify final judicial judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: While the legislature can retrospectively amend laws to remove defects in enactments and validate consequential actions, it cannot directly annul a final judgment of a court or override the exercise of judicial review to validate a process found to be corrupt. Such an act exceeds the legislative power and is unconstitutional as it infringes upon the rule of law.
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Constitutional Law - Rule of Law - Judicial Review - The legislature cannot sit in appeal over a decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court. While it is open to change the law in general by changing the legal basis, it is not open to set aside an individual decision inter parties affecting their rights and liabilities through a subsequent legislation, as such an exercise would sound the death knell of the rule of law (Paras 15, 16).
Facts of the case:
Recruitment for Group 'A' and 'B' officer posts was cancelled by the State Government after an inquiry revealed rampant corruption and nepotism in the selection process. The cancellation was subsequently upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Following these judgments, the State enacted a validation act to regularize the appointments of selected candidates. This act and the appointments made under it were challenged by unsuccessful candidates.
Findings of Court:
The validation act is unconstitutional because it attempts to annul the final judgments of constitutional courts and seeks to legitimize a recruitment process that was fundamentally corrupted. Equity cannot be claimed by selected candidates when their appointment is based on a recruitment declared tainted by courts and effectuated through a stillborn legislation.
Issues: Whether a legislative act can validate a recruitment process that was previously set aside by courts on grounds of corruption and nepotism, and whether such legislation can effectively nullify final judicial judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: While the legislature can retrospectively amend laws to remove defects in enactments and validate consequential actions, it cannot directly annul a final judgment of a court or override the exercise of judicial review to validate a process found to be corrupt. Such an act exceeds the legislative power and is unconstitutional as it infringes upon the rule of law.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Phadke, Adv. Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv. Mr. Yashvardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.R.- 2761, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Chhadha, A.A.G. Mr. Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, AOR Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv. Ms. Rakshita Singh, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kunwar Aditya Singh, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli- 2021, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Phadke, Adv. Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv. Mr. Yashvardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.R.- 2761, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Chhadha, A.A.G. Mr. Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, AOR Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv. Ms. Rakshita Singh, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kunwar Aditya Singh, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli- 2021, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend the legislature cannot nullify a judicial decision; state respondents and beneficiaries argue for equity and relief from hardship for untainted candidates. (Para 9 , 10 , 18 )
3. The legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to nullify final binding judicial verdicts, while the tainted nature of the entire recruitment process precludes equitable relief for individual candidates. (Para 11 , 13 , 17 , 18 )
4. Legislatures may amend law retrospectively to remove a defect, but they cannot directly annul or override a final judgment of a constitutional court in inter partes matters. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
5. The enactment is declared unconstitutional and set aside, with directions for a fresh recruitment process granting age relaxation to all eligible participants. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a state legislature enact a law to validate a recruitment process previously annulled by the courts?
No. While the legislature can amend the basis of a law retrospectively, it cannot sit in appeal over a court decision or legislatively override a final judgment to validate an otherwise tainted recruitment process. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
7. Is it permissible to isolate untainted candidates from a recruitment process vitiated by rampant systemic corruption?
No. When the selection process is fundamentally vitiated by corruption and nepotism, identifying and separating tainted and untainted candidates is not permissible as it would interfere with the purity of the entire process. (Para 4 , 11 , 18 )
8. What is the scope of judicial review when the state attempts to nullify a court order via legislation?
The court must ensure the rule of law is upheld. Allowing a state to negate judicial review by overriding decisions through retrospective legislation would sound the death knell of the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
“When the winds of politics change direction, it is the common man, who gets caught in the storm”.
(Unknown)
Leave granted.
2. A recruitment of 2011 is hanging fire still, putting to peril the aspirations of many, who have crossed the age for consideration and shattering the hopes of the selected few, from continuing in employment. Six appellants who would be over aged now have relentlessly pursued their cause in their zeal to join the Karnataka Civil Services.
3. Long back, on 03.11.2011, the State Government issued a notification for recruitment to 362 posts of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ Officers, as per the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 (for short, the Rules of 1997). A total of 1,38,307 candidates applied for the recruitment, out of which 91,667 appeared for the preliminary examination. The candidates who sat for the mains; having qualified in the preliminary, were 6,211 out of which 1,090 were called for interview. In the year 2013, on the advice of the Advocate General, based on a complaint regarding illegalities in the selection, the State Government withheld the publication of the final select list, pending an inquiry, handed over to the State CID. Gross manipulations of the recruitment process, including rampant corruption and instances of blatant nepotism of officials of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) were revealed in the inquiry, based on which the entire recruitment was cancelled.
4. The selected candidates approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) which quashed the G.O. But a bunch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by the aggrieved candidates, including the appellants herein against the order of the KAT went in their favour. The State Government admitted the irregularities and the cancellation of the selection list dated 21.03.2014 was affirmed by the High Court. The High Court’s order was challenged before this Court in three Special Leave Petitions which were dismissed by Annexure P2 order in Civil Appeal Nos.3543-3555 of 2018, ‘ Avinash C. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ’. This Court referred to the findings of the High Court which spoke inter alia of material on record, in the form of call details between candidates and Members of the KPSC. In the interview, certain candidates were awarded exactly the same marks, revealing no objective assessment by the individual members; at least in the case of 566 candidates. The digital video recorder in the KPSC building was replaced to destroy the evidence and there appeared to be extraneous reasons in awarding marks. This Court refused to interfere with the annulment of the selection as carried out by the State Government itself, affirmed by the High Court. There was a contention raised of only certain candidates having been found to be tainted which was rejected on the reasoning that when the selection itself is tainted, segregating tainted and untainted candidates would only interfere with the purity of the selection process. While upholding the decision of the High Court, the contention of some of the parties that the written examination is not vitiated and the selection could be continued from the stage of interview was directed to be raised before the High Court.
5. Relying on this liberty reserved, Interlocutory Applications were filed in the disposed of PILs, seeking restoration of the recruitment process from the stage of publication of the results of the written examination. By Annexure P3, the High Court found that the revelations from the preliminary report of investigation were outrageous and scandalous which were also reproduced in Annexure P3. The irregularities in evaluation of answer scripts were found to be shockingly disgraceful, shaking the very confidence placed upon the Public Service Commission, a Constitutional Body meant to act in aid of efficient and smooth functioning of the administration by making recruitments w
