Back
Stays Karnataka HC's Probe Order in Recruitment Scam
The on , issued an on the ’s directions to constitute a ) and conduct a investigation into alleged irregularities in the ) recruitment processes. A comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the order while hearing the ’s appeal against the High Court’s September 21 judgment.
The stay applies specifically to of the High Court’s order, which had mandated the formation of an headed by senior IPS officer Alok Kumar, the Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, and a fresh investigation to be completed within 100 days. The directed the state government to file its objections to the members in a and permitted it to suggest alternative names. The matter is now listed for further hearing on .
Background of the Recruitment Scandal
The controversy stems from two separate criminal cases registered in 2026. Crime No. 89 of 2026, filed on July 24, followed a complaint by Dr. Manjunatha and 24 other candidates alleging that middlemen demanded bribes of up to ₹80 lakh per post for recruitment to 400 Veterinary Officer positions in the . The complaint claimed that some candidates were provided with question papers and answers and assisted in manipulating OMR sheets.
Crime No. 78 of 2026, registered on July 10, concerns broader allegations of irregularities in other recruitments, including the selection of Industrial Extension Officers and Gazetted Probationers. The petitions before the High Court—filed by BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal and the —sought a ) probe, citing past controversies such as manipulation of interview marks, question-paper leaks, and favouritism involving the then Chairman and his daughters.
The , in its September 21 judgment, declined to transfer the cases to the but held that the investigations could not continue with either the ) or the local police. Instead, it constituted an comprising senior state police officers, including Alok Kumar, Divya Gopinath, Anup A Shetty, Kushal Chouksey, and Kshama Mishra. The High Court directed the to undertake a investigation into both crimes and submit progress reports every 30 days, with a due within 100 days. It also directed the to cooperate with the , which had registered an in connection with the .
Arguments Before the
, appearing for the , vehemently opposed the High Court’s directions. He argued that the had already conducted substantial investigations and the probe was nearing completion. “There is no comment on the investigation and the judge says ‘I will set up an ’. There is no ground. There are no adverse findings. Why should the judge have chosen the officers?” Sibal submitted.
He further contended that a investigation would effectively wipe out all the work already done by the . Sibal also raised objections to the composition of the , specifically highlighting that Alok Kumar had been subject to a separate investigation concerning alleged phone interception and tapping. He argued that the High Court had selected the members without consulting the state government.
, representing the respondents who had supported the High Court’s order, countered these submissions. He questioned the state’s resistance to an comprising its own police officers. “I am surprised that the state is here today saying its own officers cannot investigate. The DGP prisons is asked to investigate. The team is entirely theirs. The entire team has been picked from the state. How can the state object? That means they want to pick and choose the people who they want to investigate,” Parameshwar argued. He also pointed out that the state had not yet notified the or transferred the relevant records as directed by the High Court.
The and Its Implications
The , after hearing both sides, observed that the direction for a investigation was problematic. “The problem here is , which means the entire investigation is wiped off. Second, if they have reservations against the , which is constituted and papers are handed over to the , what happens? Whatever investigation has been done gets tampered with,” the Bench remarked.
However, the Court also noted that the constitution of an itself may not be inherently flawed given the nature of the allegations. “If it has been a regular pattern and the accused is a very high-ranking official, then in such circumstances, the constitution of an is itself not bad,” the Bench added.
Ultimately, the Court passed an staying of the High Court’s judgment. The relevant portion of the order reads: “In the meantime, the directions in paragraph 34(i) and 34(ii) shall remain stayed. Issue on 12th October. By the next date, the state shall submit in delineating the objections, if any, against the members of the constituted under the order of the High Court. They may also suggest alternative names for the .”
The stay effectively halts the formation of the and the fresh investigation until the examines the state’s objections. The mechanism allows the state to raise concerns about individual officers without public disclosure, preserving the confidentiality of the process.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Judicial Oversight and Executive Control
The ’s raises important questions about the scope of High Court’s power under to constitute an and order a investigation. While courts have the inherent power to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, especially when allegations involve high-ranking officials, the state’s argument that no adverse findings were made against the cannot be lightly dismissed.
The case highlights the tension between the need for independent investigation and the principle that investigating agencies should be allowed to complete their work unless there is clear evidence of bias or inefficiency. The ’s decision to stay the investigation while allowing the state to object to members indicates that the Court may be inclined to permit the to proceed but with a modified composition or without a fresh start.
For legal professionals, this case underscores the importance of establishing specific allegations of investigative failure before seeking a change of investigating agency. It also illustrates the use of procedures to address sensitive objections without compromising ongoing probes.
What Lies Ahead
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on , by which time the must file its objections and alternative suggestions. The will then decide whether to modify the High Court’s order, uphold it, or allow the to proceed with a different team.
Meanwhile, the ’s investigation into the Veterinary Officer scam has already made significant progress. The arrested former exam controller Gyanendra Kumar Gangwar, an IAS officer, for allegedly leaking exam questions to around 20 candidates through a middleman. It was found that approximately ₹52 lakh of the bribes were used to purchase jewellery for a friend of Gangwar. In the second case, the suspended chairman’s daughter is accused of submitting a fake income certificate to secure a post under the OBC category.
The outcome of the proceedings will have far-reaching implications for the integrity of public service commissions and the judiciary’s role in overseeing criminal investigations. Legal observers will be closely watching the October 12 hearing to see how the Court balances the state’s executive authority with the need for transparent and independent probes into large-scale recruitment fraud.
