On an appeal by the Karnataka Government, which argued that its CID probe was nearly complete, the Supreme Court has put on hold the High Court’s order handing the alleged KPSC recruitment scam involving Veterinary Officer posts to a Special Investigation Team for a fresh investigation, while signalling that its concern lies with the de novo probe rather than the SIT itself.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on October 1 stayed the directions of the Karnataka High Court constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and ordering a de novo investigation into alleged irregularities in the Karnataka Public Service Commission’s (KPSC) recruitment of 400 Veterinary Officers and other KPSC recruitments [State of Karnataka v. Raj Mohammed].
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the interim order on the State’s special leave petition against the High Court’s September 21 judgment, staying paragraphs 34(i) and 34(ii), which constituted the SIT and directed it to investigate afresh. The Court issued notice returnable on October 12 and asked the State to place its objections to the SIT’s members on record in a sealed cover.
The order
“In the meantime, the directions in paragraph 34(i) and 34(ii) shall remain stayed. Issue notice returnable on 12th October. By the next date, the state shall submit in sealed cover delineating the objections, if any, against the members of the SIT constituted under the order of the High Court. They may also suggest alternative names for the SIT.”
During the hearing, the Bench indicated that it was not inclined to disturb the decision to entrust the probe to an SIT, but voiced reservations about directing the investigation to start afresh.
State: CID probe nearly complete
Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the Crime Investigation Department (CID) was already investigating the cases and was close to completing its probe, and that there was no specific allegation against the CID officers to justify a fresh investigation. A de novo probe, he argued, would wipe out the work already done. He also objected to the High Court choosing the SIT’s members without seeking the State’s suggestions.
Sibal specifically questioned the inclusion of Alok Kumar, Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, who heads the SIT, referring to a separate CBI investigation which, he submitted, raised questions about Kumar’s role in phone interception and tapping. These were submissions made in court; the Supreme Court recorded no finding on them.
Respondents: ‘The team is entirely theirs’
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, for the respondents, pointed out that the original prayer before the High Court was for a CBI probe, and questioned why the State was resisting an SIT made up of its own police officers. He told the Bench:
“I am surprised that the state is here today saying its own officers cannot investigate. The DGP prisons is asked to investigate. The team is entirely theirs. The entire team has been picked from the state. How can the state object? That means they want to pick and choose the people who they want to investigate.”
He added that the State had neither notified the SIT nor transferred the records after the High Court’s order, and was bound to comply with it.
Background of the case
The High Court’s judgment arose from two sets of petitions: some seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI, and others filed by selected candidates seeking to quash the FIRs. Among those seeking a CBI probe were BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal and the All-Karnataka State Students Association, who cited alleged irregularities in past recruitments and allegations involving the then KPSC Chairman and his daughters.
Crime No. 89 of 2026, registered on July 24, 2026 on a complaint by veterinary doctor Dr. Manjunatha and 24 other candidates, concerns the recruitment to 400 Veterinary Officer posts in the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department. The complaint alleges that middlemen demanded bribes of up to Rs 80 lakh per post, with Rs 40 lakh in advance, and that some candidates were given question papers and answers and helped to manipulate OMR sheets. Crime No. 78 of 2026, registered on July 10, 2026, relates to other KPSC recruitments, including those of Industrial Extension Officers and Gazetted Probationers. The allegations are yet to be tested, and no court has ruled on them.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the High Court declined to transfer the cases to the CBI, but held that neither the CID nor the jurisdictional police should continue with the investigation. He constituted an SIT of senior State police officers headed by Alok Kumar, directed it to investigate both crimes de novo and file its final report within 100 days, with progress reports every 30 days, and asked it to cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate, which has registered an ECIR on the predicate offences. The candidates’ petitions to quash the FIRs were kept pending until the SIT’s report, with the matters listed on January 5, 2027.
What Happens Next In The KPSC Recruitment Scam Probe
With the stay in place, the High Court’s SIT cannot take over or restart the investigation for now. The matter returns on October 12, when the Court will consider the State’s sealed-cover objections and any alternative names it proposes for the team.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Raj Mohammed [SLP (Crl) Nos. 18775-18779 of 2026, Diary No. 59897 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
For the State of Karnataka: Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: K. Parameshwar, Senior Advocate