High Court Questions Income Declaration in Reservation Case
The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, scrutinized a petition by Suma S Sahukar, the daughter of the suspended Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Chairman, Shivashankarappa S Sahukar. Suma is facing allegations of falsely declaring her father’s annual income as ₹40,000 to access reservation benefits meant for economically weaker sections. Justice M Nagaprasanna presided over the case and expressed strong reservations about the petitioner’s claims.
Justice Nagaprasanna Highlights Fraud Concerns
Justice Nagaprasanna was forthright in his remarks, noting that the allegations against Suma Sahukar appeared to reveal a case of fraud. He stated, “It is an open and shut case. There is nothing to enquire into at all. How long do you want to hoodwink the people, all these KPSC people?” The judge also lamented the recurring issues surrounding KPSC’s recruitment processes, suggesting that controversies have become a consistent problem.
Petition Withdrawn Amidst Court’s Apprehensions
Following the court’s critical observations, Suma S Sahukar decided to withdraw her petition. The Bench permitted this withdrawal but granted her the liberty to approach the court again if needed, after the final report in the criminal case is filed. Suma had argued that the case was premature due to the lack of mandatory verification under Rule 7A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992, which addresses prosecution for false caste certificate procurement.
Legal Arguments and Court’s Response
Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam, representing Suma, contended that a show-cause notice was only issued after the criminal proceedings commenced, and that the proper statutory procedure was not followed. However, the court repeatedly questioned the need for further inquiry, given the undisputed facts. Justice Nagaprasanna inquired whether the KPSC Chairman had participated in the interview process and questioned the income declaration made by Suma, stating that the fraud was evident.
Impact on Genuine Candidates
The court was particularly concerned about the impact on genuinely deserving candidates. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “What should happen to a person who genuinely deserves the benefit? You have taken away the chance of a poor student. Have you not stolen that chance from that person?” The Bench noted that even if Suma ultimately withdrew from the selection process, the harm caused to legitimate candidates could not be overlooked.
More Read
State’s Position in the Legal Proceedings
Representing the State, Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh informed the court that the investigation was ongoing. He argued that Suma could not seek legal protection simply because she withdrew from the selection process, asserting that procedural irregularities should not shield her from accountability.
