The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to cancel a criminal case registered against the daughter of suspended Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) chairman Shivashankarappa S Sahukar.
The court strongly observed that her alleged submission of a false income declaration to claim benefits under the 3B reservation category amounted to an “eyewash” and a clear “fraud.”
Suma S Sahukar faced charges under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly forging income documents and presenting them as genuine during a state government recruitment drive. She sought legal relief and approached the High Court. Specifically, she wanted the court to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against her.
Allegations of Fraudulent Income Declaration for KPSC Recruitment
The controversy stems from Suma’s application for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Industries and Commerce. She applied during the KPSC recruitment process in March 2024.
To qualify under the Category 3B reservation—which is meant for candidates with an annual family income below Rs 8 lakh—she allegedly submitted an income and asset certificate. The certificate declared her family’s annual income as just Rs 40,000.
However, document verification by KPSC revealed that her father had been serving as a Commission member since September 2019. Later, he was appointed KPSC chairman in April 2021. He earned a basic monthly salary exceeding Rs 2.25 lakh, alongside official allowances.
Severe Judicial Remarks on Stolen Opportunities for Genuine Candidates
During the hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna sharply criticized the attempt to claim reservation benefits under false pretenses.
The bench orally remarked that a genuine candidate whose family annual income was actually Rs 40,000 or below lost a legitimate opportunity because of this submission.
Justice Nagaprasanna questioned how the daughter of a sitting KPSC chairman could declare an annual income of Rs 40,000. He noted her father earned a monthly salary of over Rs 2.17 lakh and an annual family income near Rs 30 lakh.
Calling the act a daylight fraud, the court rejected arguments that a preliminary inquiry was necessary before filing an FIR. It termed the matter an open-and-shut case.
Withdrawal of Petition and Broader Legal Proceedings
Senior Advocate Arun Shyam, representing Suma, argued that she mistakenly believed she only needed to declare her personal income. He claimed she thought this rather than having to declare her family’s total earnings.
The court dismissed this explanation and noted that someone lacking such basic awareness was unfit to enter government service. Following the bench’s strong observations, the petitioner opted to withdraw her quashing petition. The court allowed the withdrawal while reserving her liberty to challenge any future chargesheet.
Meanwhile, Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha noted she could not claim protections reserved for marginalized communities.
In related developments, a Bengaluru sessions court recently granted Suma anticipatory bail. Meanwhile, her father has separately challenged his suspension order before the High Court.
Curated news reports, in-depth analysis, and special features by India’s Opinion editorial team.
