Asking why its members were staying away from the Crime Branch probe into alleged irregularities in a State Planning Board recruitment exam, the Kerala High Court told the Public Service Commission that it was being called to give information, not as an accused.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Monday questioned the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) over its members not cooperating with the Crime Branch investigation into alleged irregularities in the examination for recruitment to the State Planning Board, while hearing the Commission’s plea to quash the FIR and the government order sanctioning the probe [Kerala Public Service Commission and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.].
Justice A. Badharudeen posted the matter to October 13, granting the State time to file its counter affidavit. The Court also raised questions on whether a statutory body could maintain a writ petition when a remedy under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS was available.
The case
According to the plea, the KPSC notified the post of Chief (Industry and Infrastructure Division) in the State Planning Board in 2022 and held a written examination. A shortlist of 10 candidates was published in February 2025, after which one candidate approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, pointing out that 10 questions had not been evaluated.
The KPSC ordered a preliminary inquiry in June 2026. Its Internal Vigilance Officer reported an error in the evaluation of one paper: one question in 177 answer scripts and nine questions in all 228 answer scripts had not been evaluated. The Commission says it then took corrective steps under its Rules of Procedure, with the Tribunal’s permission.
The State government then issued an order directing an investigation, and the Crime Branch registered an FIR alleging offences under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (criminal breach of trust) and Sections 7(c) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Notices were issued to the Commission’s members and staff. The KPSC seeks to quash the FIR and the sanction, and a declaration that the Commission and its staff are not employed in connection with the affairs of the State, so the State cannot sanction their prosecution.
The allegations are at the investigation stage and remain untested. No one has been named as an accused, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and all those involved are presumed innocent.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC’s De Novo SIT Probe Into Alleged KPSC Recruitment Scam
‘You are being called as a man knowing the facts’
The Court asked why the Commission’s members were not cooperating when, by their own case, they had acted in accordance with law:
“Why you are not cooperating with investigation? You have a case as per the writ petition itself that what you have done is as per the order, etc. Then you go before them, give a statement, produce the documents. You justify your actions in terms of law. You are well aware of the fact that interrogation or questioning of the accused is one among the vital stage of investigation. So you must cooperate. You are being called for getting information, not arrayed as an accused. You are being called as a man knowing the facts of the case.”
The Court also spoke of what is at stake for job aspirants:
“The hope of the young generation in the State should be protected. They have only one scope, that a government job may be ensured by hard work, because they are expecting a legitimate expectation is there that they may get a job if they may be able to compete the examination and get their rank without any influence, manipulation. That should be kept intact.”
Questions on maintainability
The Court asked why the Commission had chosen a writ petition over the remedy available in criminal law:
“What is the status of a statutory body to file a writ petition? That is the first question. The second question is whether a remedy under S. 482 CrPC/528 BNSS is available?…You are not remediless. You can file a Crl.M.C. raise these contentions, you will get an order. But you want to get such an order in writ petition itself. Why?”
What the parties argued
Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, for the KPSC, argued that no crime had been committed and that there was only a clerical error, which the Kerala Administrative Tribunal had permitted the Commission to correct. He said questions 9 to 18 had not been forwarded to the examiner for any of the 228 candidates because of a computer snag. He also argued that the government order gave omnibus directions, including sanction to prosecute the Commission’s members under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Director General of Prosecution T.A. Asaf Ali, for the State, argued that there was an “innovative fraud” at play which the government wanted investigated. He submitted that none of the Commission’s members had been arrayed as accused, but that they had neither appeared nor cooperated despite receiving notices. He said that, in his legal opinion, no sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act was needed, as the government order only directed the Crime Branch to investigate, and that the probe was continuing.
Crime Branch Probe: ‘It is not a sanction under 17A’
Agreeing with the State on this point, the Court orally observed:
“It is not a sanction under 17A. Sanction under Section 17A contains at least against whom the investigation is even made… Here, the order doesn’t say against whom. Order is government noticed malpractice in PSC and this should require an enquiry for which a direction was given. That is a general direction. Enquiry, investigation and its culmination in the form of a report would disclose who are persons actually involved in the corruption. Or at least corruption as alleged. That is a matter of inquiry.”
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr. [WP(Crl.) No. 1497 of 2026]
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
Date of Hearing: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar with Advocates Martin Jose P., P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Harikrishnan S., Anavadya Sanil Kumar, Anjali Krishna, Abhinav P.S. and Adarsh V. Manoj for the KPSC; Director General of Prosecution T.A. Asaf Ali for the State