The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to halt a criminal investigation against the daughter of suspended former Karnataka Public Service Commission chairman Shivashankarappa S Sahukar, with the petitioner withdrawing her plea after the court questioned the legitimacy of an income certificate allegedly used to claim reservation benefits in a government recruitment process.
Event Context
Hearing a petition filed by Suma S Sahukar seeking to quash the first information report against her, Justice M Nagaprasanna said the allegations disclosed a prima facie case warranting investigation and indicated that the court would not invoke its inherent powers to terminate the proceedings at the threshold.
Justice Nagaprasanna also expressed concern over repeated controversies surrounding recruitments conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. “Every recruitment by the KPSC appears to end up in controversy. This is becoming a disturbing pattern,” the judge remarked.
With the court indicating that it would neither quash the proceedings nor grant interim protection, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea. The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the criminal investigation to continue.
The case centres on allegations that Suma Sahukar submitted a false income certificate while applying under a reserved category in a government recruitment process. Investigators allege that although the family’s annual income was around ₹30 lakh, the application was supported by a certificate declaring an annual income of only ₹40,000, enabling her to claim reservation benefits meant for economically eligible candidates.
Team Analysis
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Suma Sahukar had disclosed only her individual income and that no criminal offence was made out. The defence maintained that the dispute centred on the interpretation of the income criteria and therefore did not warrant criminal prosecution.
The court rejected that argument, observing that the certificate in question required disclosure of the annual family income rather than the applicant’s personal earnings alone. “Can you ignore the family income when the certificate itself requires disclosure of the family’s annual income? How can such a claim be justified?” the judge asked.
Match Outlook
During the hearing, the judge repeatedly questioned how the petitioner could claim reservation by declaring an annual income of ₹40,000 when investigators alleged her family’s annual income was about ₹30 lakh. “Prima facie, this appears to be a case of fraud,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
“You have taken away the opportunity meant for a poor candidate. Is this how reservation benefits are to be claimed?” the court asked.
