Karnataka HC shocked after daughters of KPSC chairman declare his annual income as ₹40k to secure reservation

The Karnataka High Court on Monday expressed shock over allegations that the Chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Shivashankarappa S Sahukar's annual income was reflected as only ₹40,000 in certificates used by his daughters to claim reservation benefits [Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal v. State of Karnataka].

The matter involves allegations that the KPSC Chairman's daughters produced fake income certificates to get reservation benefits in recruitment to government jobs.

A petition has been filed before the Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged recruitment irregularities.

The plea highlights that while the KPSC Chairman draws a monthly salary of about ₹2.71 lakh, income certificates furnished by his daughters declared his annual income as only ₹40,000.

"This is shocking. KPSC Chairman's salary is ₹40,000? State's youth... People who have qualification are suffering," Justice M Nagaprasanna orally remarked, while hearing the plea yesterday.

The petition was filed by BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal and the All Karnataka State Students Association

Their counsel argued that both the KPSC Chairman's daughters had secured selection to government jobs under Category 3B (a reserved category) while the Chairman himself was part of the selection process.

Their counsel, advocates Venkatesh Dalwayi and Girish Bhardwaj, submitted that one of the Chairman's daughters had secured appointment to the post of Industrial Extension Officer in this way.

To secure reservation benefits, she is alleged to have produced an income certificate showing her father's annual income as ₹40,000 despite his salary being around ₹2.71 lakh per month.

The petitioners contended that the FIR subsequently registered by the State in the matter was merely an "eye-wash."

"There are political connections.This is not the first time KPSC has indulged in such things. Right from 2011-12, this Court has found irregularities. Therefore, all the FIRs and complaints deserve to be transferred to the CBI," counsel submitted.

The petitioners also expressed apprehensions that the State may constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to avoid a CBI probe.

"The moment we file a petition, the State would be in a hurry to constitute an SIT. That has happened in my earlier experience. This time they are going to do the same thing," counsel argued.

The Court yesterday sought the response of the State and the CBI in the matter, while observing that the case raises issues far beyond an ordinary criminal complaint.

"The grievance projected before this Court transcends the ordinary contours of an individual complaint. It raises allegations which, if they carry even a semblance of truth, have the potential to erode the sanctity of a constitutional institution entrusted with one of the most solemn public functions—the recruitment of meritorious candidates into the civil services of the State," the Court observed.

The Court noted that the allegations are directed against the Chairman of the KPSC, an independent constitutional body expected to function with "unimpeachable fairness" and institutional integrity.

"Nothing can be more disquieting, if the allegations ultimately withstand scrutiny, than the projection of such an abysmally low income by the head of an independent constitutional institution. Such an assertion, on its face, does not merely invite disbelief; it raises grave questions touching upon the transparency, credibility and institutional purity of the recruitment process itself," the Court observed.

It added that constitutional institutions derive legitimacy not merely from the text of the Constitution but also from the confidence they inspire in the public. Any allegation casting a shadow on that confidence warrants serious examination, the Court said.

State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh submitted that an FIR had already been registered on the same allegations and that the investigation was in progress.

The Court recorded that on a complaint by the KPSC, a crime for offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been registered.

However, the Court also took note of the petitioners' contention that the FIR was only intended to create an impression of institutional responsiveness while leaving the core allegations untouched.

The Court added that the petitioners would be at liberty to move the Court in the event the State attempts to constitute and transfer the investigation to an SIT.

The matter will next be heard on July 29.