Last Updated:
The Supreme Court’s intervention has altered the process for selecting the SIT, but the investigation into the alleged recruitment irregularities remains the central issue
The state government cited past investigations involving Alok Kumar while opposing his appointment as SIT head, with submissions before the Supreme Court referring to a CBI investigation. (File pic/PTI)
Senior Karnataka IPS officer Alok Kumar has contested the Karnataka government’s objections to his appointment as head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing alleged irregularities in Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) recruitments, challenging the allegations cited against him and insisting that the government place the correct judicial record before the Supreme Court.
In a representation to Karnataka Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh, Alok Kumar has strongly contested the submissions made by the State government’s counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, before the Supreme Court on October 1, when the government opposed the Karnataka High Court’s decision to appoint him to head the SIT. He has questioned the reference to a pending Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against him in connection with the 2019 phone-tapping controversy, arguing that the submissions were factually incorrect and did not reflect the relevant court orders.
“I am deeply distressed that, for no fault whatsoever on my part, my name has been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy, and my professional integrity and reputation have been questioned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” Alok Kumar said in the letter, adding that the State’s counsel appeared to have been “incorrectly briefed”.
The officer has urged the Chief Secretary to ensure that the government’s affidavit before the Supreme Court reflects the actual position of the cases and proceedings involving him, and that allegations which he says are not supported by the current judicial record are not presented as pending proceedings against him.
At the centre of the objections raised against Alok Kumar is the 2019 phone-tapping and audio-leak controversy. The State government cited past investigations involving the officer while opposing his appointment as SIT head, with submissions before the Supreme Court referring to a CBI investigation.
Alok Kumar has disputed the suggestion that he is facing a pending CBI probe in the matter. In his representation, he pointed out that the CBI had filed a closure report, commonly referred to as a B-report, which was accepted by the Special CBI Court on February 13, 2024.
According to the senior IPS officer, the court found no material evidence against the accused, taking into account the findings of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) and witness statements. He also referred to the position taken by the original complainant, former DCP (Traffic) Kuldeep Jain, who had informed the court that he had no objection to the closure report.
At A Glance
Senior IPS officer Alok Kumar contested the Karnataka government’s objections to his appointment as head of the Special Investigation Team probing KPSC recruitment irregularities.
Alok Kumar disputed references to a pending CBI probe regarding the 2019 phone-tapping controversy, noting a closure report was accepted by the Special CBI Court on February 13, 2024.
The Karnataka High Court on September 21 ordered a court-monitored SIT investigation and appointed Alok Kumar to head the team.
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s directions on October 1, removing Alok Kumar and Divya Gopinath from the original SIT and leaving the selection of the SIT head to the State DGP.
Alok Kumar further cited a preliminary inquiry submitted by the CBI in January 2022, stating that the agency had found no criminality and had left the matter for consideration by the State government.
He also pointed out that he served as Bengaluru City Police Commissioner for only 47 days, from June 17, 2019, to August 2, 2019, during the period examined by investigators.
These are the grounds on which the officer has challenged the manner in which the phone-tapping controversy was brought up before the Supreme Court. His contention is that the existence of an earlier investigation cannot be presented without accounting for its outcome and the judicial orders that followed.
The distinction is important in the context of the government’s objections. The State invoked past investigations to question whether Alok Kumar was the appropriate officer to lead a sensitive probe into alleged recruitment irregularities. Alok Kumar, in turn, has asked the government to consider the actual status of those proceedings before using them to question his integrity.
Departmental proceedings: Alok Kumar cites CAT order
The phone-tapping case was not the only issue addressed in Alok Kumar’s representation. He has also set out the sequence of departmental proceedings initiated against him, arguing that these, too, have been cited without adequately reflecting the subsequent legal developments.
According to his letter, a proposal to initiate disciplinary action against him was dropped after representations submitted by him in March 2023 were examined by the then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai.
However, a fresh show-cause notice and charge sheet were issued in May 2025. Alok Kumar approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging both.
According to his representation, the CAT Chairman quashed the show-cause notice and charge sheet in October 2025 and directed that all consequential benefits be extended to him.
The State government subsequently challenged the CAT order before the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition. Alok Kumar has pointed out that the High Court declined to grant an interim stay of the tribunal’s order.
On the basis of these developments, the officer has maintained that there is no subsisting departmental inquiry or charge against him arising from the proceedings in question. He has asked the Chief Secretary to ensure that the State’s legal team is made aware of the tribunal’s order and the subsequent proceedings before the High Court.
While the State has challenged the CAT’s decision, Alok Kumar has relied on the fact that the High Court did not grant an interim stay. His representation asks the government to present this sequence accurately rather than leave the impression that the earlier departmental proceedings remain pending in the same form.
The officer has therefore sought to place both the CBI closure report and the orders relating to the departmental proceedings before the government’s legal team. His objection is that these developments must be considered before his past is cited as a ground to question his suitability for heading the KPSC investigation.
Why the Karnataka High Court chose Alok Kumar to head the KPSC SIT
The controversy over Alok Kumar’s record comes amid a legal battle over the Karnataka High Court’s decision to constitute a court-monitored SIT to investigate alleged irregularities in KPSC recruitment examinations.
On September 21, the Karnataka High Court ordered an SIT investigation into two recruitment cases, appointing Alok Kumar to head the team. The order was passed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna on petitions filed by Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal, MLA, the All Karnataka State Students’ Association and Manjunath, who had sought a probe by the CBI.
The two cases concern the selection of a daughter of the KPSC’s suspended chairperson, Shivashankar S Sahukar, to the post of Industrial Extension Officer, and alleged illegalities in the selection of candidates to 400 veterinary officer posts.
The High Court observed that, given the circumstances, it was not appropriate to permit the investigation to continue either with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) or the jurisdictional police. At the same time, it was not convinced that entrusting the probe to the CBI was the only available course.
The court therefore ordered a court-monitored investigation by an SIT, with a clear mandate to examine the allegations independently and impartially.
The SIT was given 100 days to complete the investigation and submit its final report, with progress reports to be filed every 30 days. The court also directed the State government to issue a notification declaring the SIT to be a police station for investigation purposes.
The original team comprised Alok Kumar as head, along with IPS officers Divya V. Gopinath, Anup A. Shetty, Kushal Chouksey and Kshama Mishra.
The court made it clear that the investigation should not be confined to the individuals already named, the allegations already made, or the scope of the cases as presently understood.
“If the evidence gathered during investigation reveals involvement of any other person, offence, transaction or act, having a nexus with the subject matter of investigation, the SIT shall follow the evidence wherever it leads, strictly in accordance with law,” the court said.
The SIT was also permitted to seek forensic, cyber, financial, technical and other specialised assistance. The court directed it to cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has taken up an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and to receive information from the agency.
The High Court’s decision to appoint Alok Kumar was thus part of a wider intervention intended to examine the recruitment allegations beyond the immediate cases and ensure that the investigation was completed within a defined timeframe.
Government objects, Supreme Court intervenes
The Karnataka government challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court, raising objections both to the constitution of the SIT and to the choice of its members.
The State argued that the High Court had created a new investigative arrangement without finding fault with the ongoing CID probe, which was nearing completion and had already resulted in arrests. It also questioned the decision to select the SIT members without consulting the government and the direction to conduct a de novo, or fresh, investigation.
The State maintained that there were no allegations of mala fide against the existing investigating agency to justify starting the investigation afresh. It also cited past investigations involving Alok Kumar to question his appointment and raised a potential conflict-of-interest concern regarding Divya Gopinath, who heads the State forensic science laboratory.
On October 1, the Supreme Court stayed the relevant directions in the High Court’s September 21 order.
“Besides, they have objection to the direction which requires the SIT to undertake a de novo investigation. It has been submitted that there is no need for a de novo investigation, particularly when there were no allegations of mala fide against the investigating agency,” the Supreme Court observed in its October 1 stay order.
The bench comprised Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi.
The government’s challenge was not limited to Alok Kumar’s past. It also questioned whether the High Court was justified in displacing the ongoing CID investigation and creating a new team with a fresh mandate when the existing probe was nearing completion.
Alok Kumar, meanwhile, has clarified that he neither sought nor lobbied for appointment as head of the KPSC SIT.
In his representation, he said the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench had nominated him on its own while passing the September 21 order. His position is that the appointment was a judicial decision and not the result of any request or intervention on his part.
The officer has asked the Chief Secretary to ensure that the government’s objections to his appointment are considered alongside the actual status of the cases and departmental proceedings cited against him. He has also urged the government to verify the relevant court orders and ensure that the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court presents an accurate factual position.
Supreme Court modifies SIT order, Alok Kumar removed from original team
The Supreme Court subsequently modified the Karnataka High Court’s directions, leaving the selection of the SIT head to the State Director General of Police and directing that a revised team be constituted within 10 days.
The bench gave the State liberty to suggest replacements for two members of the original SIT and sent the matter back to the High Court to review the revised composition.
“The state has suggested a change in composition of the SIT by requiring the state DGP to nominate an officer not below the rank of an ADGP,” the Supreme Court noted.
Following the Supreme Court’s intervention, Alok Kumar and Divya Gopinath have been removed from the original SIT, with the investigation to proceed under the revised arrangement and the High Court to review the composition.
The modification changes the immediate question of who will head the investigation. But it does not resolve the underlying allegations in the KPSC recruitment cases, nor does the change in the SIT’s composition establish wrongdoing on the part of the officers who were originally appointed.
The dispute now involves two distinct questions: whether the High Court was justified in ordering a fresh investigation and constituting an SIT, and whether the allegations cited against Alok Kumar accurately reflected the status of the proceedings involving him.
The Supreme Court’s intervention has altered the process for selecting the team, but the investigation into the alleged recruitment irregularities remains the central issue.
KPSC’s troubled history and the stakes for recruitment
In its September order, the Karnataka High Court traced the troubled history of KPSC recruitments to 1998, observing that allegations of nepotism, favouritism, fraud, corruption, OMR-sheet tampering and manipulation had recurred over the years.
The court noted that there had even been allegations of answers being written for candidates elsewhere while examinations were under way.
“History, it is said, should teach institutions. It cannot be permitted merely to repeat itself, recruitment after recruitment, at the cost of thousands of aspirants whose only capital is merit and whose only expectation is fairness,” the court observed.
The court’s remarks went beyond the immediate cases. It pointed to the consequences of repeated recruitment controversies for young people who spend years preparing for competitive examinations in the belief that merit will determine their future.
“When a post is sold, an OMR sheet is tampered with, marks are manipulated or a selection is engineered, merit is not merely defeated; it is betrayed,” the court said.
It added that such betrayal breeds cynicism among young aspirants and creates the dangerous perception that constitutional avenues themselves are available for purchase. A recruitment scam in a Public Service Commission, the court observed, is not merely a theft of a post but “a theft of equality of opportunity”.
These observations explain why the court sought a time-bound investigation with regular progress reports and the freedom to examine anyone whose involvement emerged from the evidence. The cases concern not merely individual appointments but the credibility of a public institution entrusted with selecting candidates for government service.
The recruitment of 400 veterinary officers is particularly significant because the allegations concern the selection process itself. The other case, involving the selection of a daughter of the suspended KPSC chairperson as an Industrial Extension Officer, has raised questions about favouritism and the circumstances in which appointments were made.
The petitioners had sought a CBI investigation, but the High Court chose a court-monitored SIT instead. The ED’s parallel investigation adds another dimension, particularly where the evidence may point to financial transactions connected to the alleged irregularities.
The court’s insistence that the SIT follow the evidence wherever it leads was intended to ensure that the investigation would not be restricted to those already named in the cases. Whether the revised team can deliver on that mandate will now be central to the outcome.
For thousands of candidates who depend on public recruitment examinations for their future, the central issue is whether the system can guarantee a fair selection process. Allegations of manipulated marks, tampered answer sheets or favouritism strike at the credibility of the recruitment system and raise questions about whether deserving candidates have been denied opportunities.
Quick Answers
Alok Kumar contested the government’s objections because he argued that submissions regarding a pending CBI probe from the 2019 phone-tapping controversy were factually incorrect and ignored a B-report closure accepted by the Special CBI Court in February 2024.
About the Author
Rohini Swamy, Associate Editor at News18, has been a journalist for nearly two decades in the television and digital space. She covers south India for News18’s digital platform. She has previously wor…Read More
October 14, 2026, 19:57 IST
Read More
