Introduction
The Karnataka High Court recently expressed astonishment over allegations concerning the income declaration of Shivashankarappa S Sahukar, the Chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC). The controversy arose when it was discovered that income certificates used by his daughters to claim reservation benefits declared his annual income as a mere ₹40,000.
Allegations and Legal Proceedings
In the case of Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal v. State of Karnataka, a petition has been filed seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities. The petition reveals that, although the KPSC Chairman earns a monthly salary of approximately ₹2.71 lakh, his daughters submitted income certificates indicating a significantly lower annual income to benefit from reservation quotas in government job recruitment.
During the hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna expressed disbelief, remarking, “This is shocking. KPSC Chairman’s salary is ₹40,000? State’s youth… People who have qualification are suffering.”
Petitioners’ Concerns
The petition was filed by BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal and the All Karnataka State Students Association. Represented by advocates Venkatesh Dalwayi and Girish Bhardwaj, the petitioners argued that the KPSC Chairman’s daughters secured positions in government jobs under Category 3B, a reserved category, with one daughter being appointed as an Industrial Extension Officer.
The petitioners allege that the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the State was superficial and did not address the core allegations. “There are political connections. This is not the first time KPSC has indulged in such things,” the counsel argued, urging the transfer of all complaints to the CBI.
More Read
Judicial Observations
The Court observed that the case’s implications extend beyond a standard criminal complaint, highlighting the potential erosion of trust in a constitutional institution responsible for recruiting meritorious candidates to the civil services. “The grievance projected before this Court transcends the ordinary contours of an individual complaint,” the Court noted, emphasizing the potential impact on institutional integrity.
The Court also acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns regarding the State’s possible formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to bypass a CBI probe. “The moment we file a petition, the State would be in a hurry to constitute an SIT,” the counsel cautioned.
Next Steps
State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh informed the Court that an FIR had been registered under Sections 336(2), 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and that an investigation was ongoing. However, the Court noted the petitioners’ assertion that the FIR was merely a facade to show institutional responsiveness.
More Read
The Court indicated that the petitioners could approach the Court again if the State attempts to shift the investigation to an SIT. The next hearing is scheduled for July 29.
