Karnataka HC grills KPSC chairman's daughter who declared his annual income as ₹40k to secure reservation

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by Suma S Sahukar, daughter of suspended Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Chairman Shivashankarappa S Sahukar, challenging an FIR accusing her of falsely declaring his annual income as ₹40,000 to claim reservation benefits for certain economically weaker sections.

Justice M Nagaprasanna questioned the basis of the declaration and observed that the allegations prima facie disclosed a fraud.

"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 Court asked.

The Court also expressed concern over repeated controversies in recruitments conducted by KPSC.

"This is not today's problem with KPSC. Every selection is marred with controversy. Sorry to say," the judge said.

Following Court's observations, Suma S chose to withdraw the petition. The Bench allowed the same with liberty to approach the Court again, if necessary, after the filing of the final report in the criminal case.

Suma S had contended that the case was premature as mandatory verification under Rule 7A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 was was not conducted before initiation of criminal proceedings.

The rule deals with the prosecution for obtaining a false caste certificate,

Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a show-cause notice was issued only subsequently and that the prescribed statutory procedure ought to have been followed before initiating criminal action.

The Court, however, repeatedly questioned what further enquiry was required when the facts were undisputed. It also asked whether her father, the chairman of KPSC, had participated in the interview process.

It questioned how she declared the annual family income of ₹40,000 to claim reservation under Category 3B.

"How did you give this declaration and come under Category 3B? When will you come under 3B? What is your income? ₹25 lakh? What enquiry do you now want? Enquiry is necessary only where there is ambiguity," the Court said, adding that the fraud was apparent.

The Bench further remarked that the alleged act had affected the rights of a deserving economically-weaker candidate.

"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 judge asked.

The Bench also opined that that even if she later withdrew from the selection process, the prejudice caused to genuine candidates could not be ignored.

"That seat is gone. Whether it is the provisional list or final list is not the issue. The issue is your act of participating under Category 3B by declaring your father's income as ₹40,000 when it is ₹30 lakh. Is it not an eyewash? Is it not a daylight fraud, prima facie?," the Court said.

The Court questioned the petitioner's reliance on alleged procedural irregularities.

"Rule cannot be followed in vacuum unless prejudice is caused. What prejudice has been caused to you? It is an open and shut case. There is nothing to enquire into at all. Is this not stealing the opportunity of a genuinely poor candidate?"

Appearing for the State, Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh submitted that the investigation was underway. He argued that the petitioner could not seek protection merely on the ground that she had withdrawn from the selection process.