Archive · 3 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Stays Karnataka High Court’s KPSC SIT Probe
The Supreme Court temporarily paused parts of a Karnataka High Court order.
The High Court had ordered a special team to investigate alleged problems in hiring 400 veterinary officers.
The state government said its own investigators were nearly finished.
It also objected to the way the special team members were chosen.
The people who brought the case supported the special team.
They said the state had not officially set it up or handed over the records.
The Supreme Court asked them to respond by October 12.
It also let the state raise concerns about the team members or suggest other people.
The Supreme Court stayed the Karnataka High Court directions creating an SIT and ordering a fresh probe into alleged KPSC recruitment irregularities.
The case concerns the selection of 400 veterinary officers and related allegations involving other KPSC recruitments.
The Karnataka government argued that the CID investigation was nearly complete and that no specific allegations against its officers justified a fresh probe.
Respondents supported the SIT, saying the state had not notified it or transferred relevant records.
The court sought responses by October 12 and asked the state to submit any objections to SIT members or suggest alternatives.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Karnataka government, and the original petitioners before the Karnataka High Court.
- What
- The Supreme Court stayed the High Court directions to constitute an SIT and conduct a fresh investigation into alleged KPSC recruitment irregularities.
- When
- The High Court issued its order on September 21; the Supreme Court issued its stay on Thursday and set October 12 for responses.
- Where
- The case concerns Karnataka and the Karnataka Public Service Commission; the challenge was heard by the Supreme Court.
- Why
- The state argued that the CID investigation was nearly complete and that no specific allegations against its officers warranted a fresh probe.
Arguments Supporting an SIT
State’s Objections to a Fresh Probe
Need for a fresh investigation
Arguments Supporting an SIT
Respondents backed an SIT and said the original High Court petition had sought a CBI investigation.
State’s Objections to a Fresh Probe
The state said the CID investigation was nearly complete and no specific allegations against CID officers justified a de novo probe.
Selection of SIT members
Arguments Supporting an SIT
Respondents argued that the state could not dictate the composition of the investigating team.
State’s Objections to a Fresh Probe
The state objected that the High Court chose members without seeking its suggestions and questioned Alok Kumar’s inclusion, citing a separate CBI probe concerning phone interception and tapping.
Implementation of the High Court order
Arguments Supporting an SIT
Respondents said the state had not notified the SIT or transferred relevant records.
State’s Objections to a Fresh Probe
The Supreme Court allowed the state to submit objections in a sealed cover and suggest alternative members while its challenge is considered.
- Recruitment under scrutiny
- Selection of 400 veterinary officers by the Karnataka Public Service Commission
- High Court order
- Issued September 21; directed an SIT and a de novo investigation
- Supreme Court action
- Stayed paragraphs 34(i) and 34(ii) concerning the SIT and fresh probe
- Response deadline
- October 12
- Proposed SIT head
- Alok Kumar, Director General and Inspector General of Prisons
- Proposed investigation timetable
- The High Court directed a report within 100 days of the investigation starting and progress reports every 30 days
- Related arrests
- KPSC registrar Gyanendra Kumar Gangwar and alleged middleman Basavaraj Kannale were arrested
