High Court Rebukes State for Delay in Constituting SIT for KPSC Scam Probe

The Karnataka High Court pulled up the State government for failing to set up the SIT investigation into the alleged Karnataka Public Service Commission recruitment scam ten days after the Supreme Court's order. The Special Investigation Team had not been constituted. Records had not been taken from the Criminal Investigation Department. The remarks came during a hearing to review compliance with earlier directions for a court-monitored probe into alleged irregularities in public recruitment by the Commission. The court said the delay was unexplained and called for immediate steps to carry out its orders.

Its earlier order had fixed 100 days for the SIT to complete the investigation and file a final report. Securing case papers from the CID and notifying a competent police station for registration and investigation were preconditions for that clock to start. Neither step had been taken when the matter came up for compliance, the court said. It sought an explanation from the State on why constitution of the team and transfer of records had not happened within the ten-day window after the Supreme Court order.

The State has challenged the High Court direction before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. That pendency was placed before the High Court. The High Court said that without a stay, the State remained bound to comply. Filing of a petition alone does not suspend directions for investigation unless the superior court passes a specific interim order.

Court questions ten-day inaction

The rebuke centred on two failures. First, the non-constitution of the SIT under the court order. Constitution here means a formal government order naming officers, laying down hierarchy, powers and reporting, and providing staff, infrastructure and funds. Second, the failure to obtain records from the CID, which had handled parts of the earlier inquiry, and to designate a competent police station where the cases would be registered and investigated. Without those administrative acts, the court said, the probe could not start on the ground, whatever the deadline for completion.

In Karnataka practice, a Special Investigation Team SIT is a temporary body drawn from police officers of different ranks and units, placed under a senior officer and tasked only with specified cases. It functions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, for procedure now, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while reporting on progress to the court where monitoring has been ordered. Formation alone does not decide the outcome of the cases. It provides a dedicated structure meant to insulate the probe from routine policing work and to allow steady attention to the voluminous records typical of recruitment cases.

Such cases turn on paper and digital evidence. Answer scripts, marks lists, tabulation sheets, question paper custody registers, centre reports, CCTV footage, call records and bank transactions are routinely cited by agencies in these matters. The insistence on prompt transfer of CID records reflects that need. If papers, case diaries and seized material stay in separate custody, a new team cannot verify what has been examined, what is left, and whether further search, seizure or questioning is required. Delay in handing over the file also affects decisions on whether additional first information reports need registration at the notified police station.

SIT investigation yet to start

Judges do not investigate the cases themselves. They fix timelines, call for status reports and pass directions to keep the probe moving. In this case the 100-day direction for completion of investigation and filing of a final report was meant to stop the inquiry from dragging on without an end date. Time-bound orders of this kind require the team to plan examination of witnesses, forensic analysis and filing of reports within a defined schedule, with extension only on a reasoned order of the court.

Unlike the dramatised version seen in the SIT Special Investigation movie, a real court-monitored probe needs detailed administrative compliance. Government orders must specify the head of the team, the investigating officers, the supervisory chain and the police station with jurisdiction. Service rules, deputation norms and budgetary sanctions apply. Case files must be transferred formally with inventory lists. Seized property must be accounted for before the court. The displeasure voiced by the High Court suggests these routine steps had not moved from file to action in the ten days after the Supreme Court order, leaving the 100-day period effectively unstarted.