The Kerala High Court KPSC examination controversy has drawn sharp criticism from the Kerala High Court. The Court questioned the State Government and Crime Branch over delays in investigating alleged evaluation irregularities in a recruitment examination. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) conducted the examination for appointments to the State Planning Board.
Justice A. Badharudeen made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by the KPSC. The Commission seeks to quash the Crime Branch First Information Report (FIR) and challenge the State’s sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During the hearing, the Court questioned why investigators had neither interrogated the main accused nor seized crucial documents. Moreover, the Court noted that no judicial order had stayed the investigation.
Kerala High Court Questions Crime Branch Investigation
The High Court expressed serious dissatisfaction with the progress of the criminal investigation.
During the proceedings, the Director General of Prosecution informed the Court that the Crime Branch had issued notices to the accused.
The prosecution also alleged that the KPSC was not cooperating with investigators.
However, Justice A. Badharudeen rejected these explanations. The Judge questioned why investigators had failed to exercise their statutory powers.
The Court observed:
“Suppose you register an FIR against a person accused of murder, he is not cooperating. Whether your hands are chained? You must go and arrest him… The prime accused persons are being spared without questioning. Then what is investigation? They could not be questioned, valid documents could not be taken into custody, then what is investigation?”
— Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Judge emphasised that investigators must take appropriate steps when accused persons refuse to cooperate.
Furthermore, the Court questioned how authorities could conduct an effective investigation without questioning the main accused or collecting relevant documents.
No Court Stay on the Investigation
The High Court also examined whether the pending KPSC petition prevented the Crime Branch from proceeding.
Justice A. Badharudeen clarified that the Commission’s decision to approach the Court did not automatically halt the investigation.
Importantly, the Court had issued no order restricting the Crime Branch from continuing its inquiry.
Therefore, investigators could not rely on the pending proceedings to justify their lack of progress.
The Judge also raised concerns about institutional protection in cases involving public authorities.
According to the Court, such conduct could weaken public confidence in law enforcement agencies.
Background of the KPSC Examination Controversy
The dispute originated from a recruitment notification that the KPSC issued in 2022.
The notification invited applications for the post of Chief (Industry & Infrastructure Division) in the Kerala State Planning Board.
Following the written examination, the KPSC published a shortlist of 10 candidates in February 2025.
However, one candidate challenged the evaluation process before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT).
The candidate alleged that evaluators had failed to assess 10 examination questions.
Consequently, concerns emerged regarding the accuracy and fairness of the recruitment process.
Internal Inquiry Reveals Evaluation Lapses
In June 2026, the KPSC conducted an internal inquiry into the alleged irregularities.
The inquiry identified lapses in the evaluation of several answer scripts.
Specifically, the findings revealed two categories of omissions:
- Evaluators had left one question unassessed in 177 answer scripts.
- Evaluators had also failed to assess nine questions across 228 answer scripts.
These findings raised further questions about the examination’s evaluation process.
Subsequently, the State Government initiated steps that led to a criminal investigation.
State Grants Sanction Under Prevention of Corruption Act
Following the examination-related allegations, the State Government granted sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Based on this sanction, the Crime Branch registered an FIR.
The FIR invoked Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 7(c) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The provisions concern alleged criminal breach of trust and corruption-related offences involving public servants.
Legal Provisions Involved
| Statutory Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| BNS Section 316(5) | Criminal breach of trust involving a public servant, banker, merchant or agent. |
| PC Act Section 7(c) | Provision concerning improper or dishonest performance of public duties in connection with undue advantage. |
| PC Act Section 13(1)(a) | Criminal misconduct involving dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation by a public servant. |
| PC Act Section 17A | Prior approval requirement for certain investigations involving decisions or recommendations made by public servants in official duties. |
The KPSC subsequently approached the High Court to challenge the State’s Section 17A sanction and the Crime Branch FIR.
Kerala High Court KPSC Case: Complainant Added
During the hearing, counsel submitted that the de facto complainant should participate in the proceedings.
The Court considered the submission and issued an interim order.
Accordingly, Justice A. Badharudeen impleaded Jayalal V.S., the candidate who had originally raised the non-evaluation issue before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
The Court also directed the Investigating Officer to serve direct notice on the complainant.
This direction allows the complainant to participate in the proceedings and present his position before the Court.
High Court Lists Matter for October 27
The High Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on Tuesday, October 27, 2026.
At the next hearing, the Court will have the opportunity to consider submissions from the parties, including the newly impleaded complainant.
Meanwhile, the Court’s observations have highlighted concerns about the Crime Branch’s handling of the investigation.
The Judge specifically questioned the failure to interrogate key accused persons and collect important records.
The Court also made clear that the pending writ petition did not prevent investigators from exercising their lawful powers.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s observations highlight the importance of timely and effective criminal investigations involving public institutions.
Justice A. Badharudeen questioned the Crime Branch’s failure to interrogate key accused persons despite the absence of a judicial stay.
Furthermore, the Court raised concerns about the consequences of investigative delays for public confidence in enforcement agencies.
The proceedings will continue on October 27, 2026, when the High Court will hear further submissions in the matter.
