KPSC Recruitment Scam: Karnataka High Court Slams State For Failing To Continue Probe Despite SC Order Upholding SIT Constitution

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (October 28) pulled up the State government for failing to notify the Special Investigation Team (SIT) as a police station in the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Veterinary Officer recruitment scam case, despite the Supreme Court having upheld the constitution of the SIT.

The Court observed that the failure had left the investigation into the alleged scam at a “standstill” and directed the State to issue the notification declaring the SIT a police station in the meantime.

Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing a batch of petitions in which the High Court had earlier directed a de novo investigation by an SIT comprising high-ranking officers. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside the direction for a de novo investigation but upheld the constitution of the SIT, directing it to conduct further investigation from the stage at which the probe was pending.

For context, in its October 13 order, the Supreme Court upheld the constitution of the SIT, observing that the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of involvement of public functionaries warranted an investigation by a team comprising high-ranking officers. However, it accepted the request for changes in the SIT's composition and left it open to the High Court to appoint or substitute its head or members.

“The Apex Court in the afore-quoted order clearly upholds the constitution of the SIT,” the High Court observed, adding that the Supreme Court had not interfered with the direction for an SIT investigation.

The Court further noted that nothing prevented the State from declaring the SIT a police station to facilitate the transfer of investigation records from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to the SIT, pending finalisation of the names of two replacement members.

At the outset, the Court asked the State what steps had been taken following the Supreme Court's order. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty informed the Bench that the State had not yet issued the notification and sought permission to place the names of two officers proposed as replacements for existing SIT members before the Court.

Expressing concern over the status of the investigation, the Bench orally asked what progress had been made in the case.

“Every investigation is stand still,” the Court orally observed, questioning what was being done in an alleged scam of such magnitude.

When the State submitted that it was awaiting the High Court's decision on the reconstitution of the SIT, including the appointment of its head, before notifying it, the Bench distinguished between the reconstitution of the team and the notification required to enable it to function. It pointed out that a Superintendent of Police was already part of the SIT.

“If the Superintendent of Police is here already, first declare that to be a police station and receive all documents. Later we'll see who is going to be the chief of the SIT. SIT will not sit and receive the documents from the CID. It is the SP whom you declare as the police station. Do it…. In these cases, you should not show such an attitude. You do it fast,” the Court orally remarked.

When the Bench asked where the Supreme Court had directed the replacement of two officers, the State's counsel explained that the apex court had set aside the direction for a de novo investigation and instead directed the SIT to continue the investigation from the stage at which it was pending.

The Advocate General further submitted that the Supreme Court had accepted the State's request to change the SIT's composition to the extent indicated in its order. The High Court had been left free to appoint or substitute the SIT chief, while the State had been granted liberty to propose alternative names for two members within two weeks. The petitioners were also permitted to raise objections to the proposed names.

The State relied on the Supreme Court's order, which recorded a suggestion that the Director General of Police be permitted to nominate alternative members of the SIT not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police (ADGP).

The petitioners, meanwhile, suggested that the SIT should be headed by an officer of the rank of Director General of Police (DGP), with the second member being an officer not below the rank of ADGP.

The High Court recorded that the Advocate General had submitted a sealed cover containing the names proposed as replacements for the SIT chief and another member. Since copies of the communication dated October 25, 2026, had not been served on the petitioners, the Court directed the State to provide them with the communication to enable them to file objections, in accordance with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court.

The petitioners' counsel, Girish Bharadwaj and Venkatesh Dalwai, sought two days to file their objections to the proposed names.

The matter will be heard again on Friday at 2:30 pm. The Court directed the State to issue, in the meantime, the order declaring the SIT a police station.