Quick Answer: A legislature cannot nullify a final judgment of a constitutional court by enacting a "validation" law. The Supreme Court struck down the Karnataka Act of 2022 that revived the 2011 KPSC Gazetted Probationers selection, which had been cancelled for rampant corruption and nepotism and upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Appointments made under the Act end, and the State must hold a fresh recruitment with a one-time age relaxation.
In Srinivasa T. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2026 INSC 1173), the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 is unconstitutional, because it sought to annul the cancellation of the 2011 recruitment that had been affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, instead of curing any defect in the law (paras 13, 15–17). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Karnataka High Court's orders that had upheld the Act, held that appointments made under it come to an end, and directed the State to notify fresh recruitment with a one-time age relaxation for untainted appointees and the appellants (paras 17, 19–20).
Status: Karnataka High Court's order dated 21.04.2022 in the Writ Petition and order dated 23.08.2022 refusing interim relief set aside; Act of 2022 declared unconstitutional; appeals allowed (paras 6, 17, 20).
Headnote: Validation Act Nullifying Court Judgments
Constitution of India – Separation of powers – Validating legislation – Legislative overruling of judicial decisions – Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 – Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 – KPSC 2011 recruitment cancelled for corruption and nepotism – Tainted and untainted candidates – Public Interest Litigation – Moulding of relief – Age relaxation.
Held: (i) A legislature may retrospectively amend a law and remove the basis of a judicial decision, but it cannot render a judgment ineffective or set aside an individual decision inter partes; doing so is unconstitutional (paras 14–16).
(ii) The Act of 2022 did not cure any defect noticed by the courts; it simply set aside the cancellation of a recruitment that the High Court and the Supreme Court had found tainted by rampant corruption and nepotism, and was therefore a "stillborn legislation" (paras 11, 13, 17).
(iii) There can be no equity in favour of candidates whose selection rests on a recruitment declared tainted by constitutional courts and whose appointment rests on an unconstitutional Act (para 11).
(iv) Once the entire selection is cancelled, there is no scope to segregate tainted and untainted candidates on the basis of a CID report; that the prosecution did not reach trial does not help the selected candidates (para 18).
(v) A PIL challenging such a law survives even if the original petitioner does not prosecute it; the Court may transpose the appellants as petitioners, and a public interest litigant cannot withdraw on the principle of dominus litis without leave (para 17).
(vi) Given the passage of about 15 years, the Court moulded the relief: fresh recruitment for vacant Group 'A' and 'B' posts under the existing rules, with one-time age relaxation, seniority only from fresh appointment, no back wages, but past service of re-selected appointees counted for pension (para 19).
(paras 11–19)
Case Details: Srinivasa T. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 1173)
Final Outcome: Appeals allowed; Act of 2022 declared unconstitutional and set aside; High Court's orders set aside; PIL allowed with appellants transposed as petitioners; fresh recruitment with one-time age relaxation directed.
Case: Srinivasa T. & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc. Etc.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1173
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 21195–21196 of 2023)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 29 October 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022; Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997; Constitution of India – separation of powers and judicial review
Impugned Orders: Karnataka High Court – order dated 21.04.2022 dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the Act of 2022, and order dated 23.08.2022 affirming the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's refusal of interim relief (para 6)
Counsel: Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate, for the appellants; Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, for the State of Karnataka; Mr. C.A. Sundram and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Advocates, for the selected candidates (paras 8, 10)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The Act of 2022 is unconstitutional and is set aside, along with the High Court orders upholding it (para 17).
- A legislature cannot sit in appeal over, or directly annul, a final judgment of the High Court or the Supreme Court; it can only change the basis of the law in general terms (paras 14–16).
- The recruitment was set aside not for a mere defect or irregularity but for rampant corruption and blatant nepotism, so nothing remained to sustain it (para 11).
- The selected candidates have no equity, as their selection is tainted and their appointment rests on a stillborn legislation (para 11).
- Tainted and untainted candidates cannot be segregated once the entire selection is cancelled; that the prosecution did not result in a trial is irrelevant (para 18).
- Appointments made under the tainted recruitment come to an end; the State must notify fresh recruitment with a one-time age relaxation (para 19).
- A PIL is not defeated because its petitioner fails to prosecute it; the appellants were transposed as petitioners (para 17).
Brief Facts of the Case
On 03.11.2011, the Karnataka Government notified recruitment to 362 Group 'A' and 'B' posts under the Rules of 1997. Of 1,38,307 applicants, 91,667 sat the preliminary examination, 6,211 sat the mains and 1,090 were called for interview (para 3).
In 2013, on a complaint of illegalities, the State withheld the final select list and handed an inquiry to the State CID. The inquiry revealed gross manipulation, rampant corruption and nepotism by officials of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), and the entire recruitment was cancelled (para 3).
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) quashed the cancellation, but PILs filed by aggrieved candidates, including the appellants, succeeded. The High Court affirmed the cancellation of the selection list dated 21.03.2014, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in Avinash C. v. State of Karnataka (Civil Appeal Nos. 3543–3555 of 2018), noting call records between candidates and KPSC members, identical interview marks for at least 566 candidates and replacement of the DVR to destroy evidence (paras 4–5).
A later attempt to resume the recruitment from the stage of the written examination was rejected by the High Court, which called the irregularities in evaluation "shockingly disgraceful", and that order too was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court (para 5).
More than a decade later, the State enacted the Act of 2022 to validate the 2011 selection. A Writ Petition against it was dismissed by the High Court on 21.04.2022, and the KAT's refusal of interim relief was upheld by the High Court on 23.08.2022 (para 6).
Of the 362 selected candidates, 46 were found tainted; 191 candidates, including 14 tainted ones, were appointed under the Act of 2022 (para 7).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Act of 2022, validating a recruitment cancelled for corruption and nepotism and affirmed by constitutional courts, is constitutionally valid (paras 9, 11).
- Whether the selected candidates, especially those not found tainted, could claim equity to continue in service (paras 10, 18).
- What relief should be granted given the passage of about 15 years since the recruitment (para 19).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Appellants' case (para 9): Senior Counsel argued that the Act of 2022 nullified the Supreme Court's decision, contrary to the principle that validation is permissible only when a defect noticed by a constitutional court is removed by later legislation, and that the legislature cannot sit in appeal over a court's decision.
State and selected candidates (paras 10, 18): The State candidly submitted that the legislation could not be supported. Counsel for the selected candidates attempted to sustain it and pressed equity, arguing that no candidate was named in the FIR or chargesheet, that cognizance was later set aside, and that the State had changed its stance on retaining untainted candidates.
No basis to sustain the recruitment (para 11): The 2011 recruitment was set aside for rampant corruption and blatant nepotism, not a mere irregularity. There could be no equity for candidates whose appointment rested on a stillborn legislation.
Identical situation in MCI v. State of Kerala (paras 12–13): As in Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, where an Ordinance regularising illegal medical admissions was struck down, the Act of 2022 relied on hardship to candidates. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons merely set aside the cancellation, without identifying any defect, while the cancellation had been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Limits of validating legislation (paras 14–16): Relying on Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara, In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala, the Court held that a legislature may alter the basis of a decision but cannot directly annul a final judgment or an individual decision inter partes; otherwise it would "sound the death knell of rule of law".
Act unconstitutional; PIL revived (para 17): The Court set aside the Act and the impugned High Court orders, allowed the PIL by transposing the appellants as petitioners, and expressed "a little bit of surprise and a lot more alarm" at the cursory manner in which the High Court had upheld the Act.
No segregation of candidates (para 18): With the entire selection cancelled, a plea to segregate tainted and untainted candidates on a CID report could not be entertained, and the appointments existed only because of the unconstitutional Act.
Final Outcome and Directions
- The Act of 2022 is declared unconstitutional and set aside, along with the High Court's orders in the PIL and the Writ Petition (para 17).
- Appointments made under the tainted recruitment come to an end (para 19).
- The State Government shall notify recruitment for the vacant Group 'A' and 'B' posts under the existing rules, with a one-time age relaxation for untainted appointees, the six appellants and the petitioners before the KAT (para 19).
- If selected, seniority runs only from the date of fresh appointment, with no back wages or notional appointment; past service of re-selected appointees counts for pension and retirement benefits (para 19).
- Appeals allowed; applications for impleadment and intervention rejected (paras 20–21).
Legal Principle Laid Down
A legislature may, within limits, amend a law retrospectively and remove the basis of a judicial decision, but it cannot directly annul a final judgment of a constitutional court or set aside an individual decision inter partes. A "validation" law that merely revives a recruitment cancelled for corruption and nepotism, and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, without curing any legal defect, is unconstitutional, and appointments made under it cannot survive on grounds of equity.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, (2019) 13 SCC 185 – Relied upon – Ordinance regularising illegal medical admissions struck down; identical situation. Discussed at paras 12, 14.
- Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd., (1970) 1 SCC 509 – Relied upon – legislature cannot render a judgment ineffective. Discussed at para 14.
- In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96 (Constitution Bench) – Relied upon – overriding judicial decisions would sound the death knell of rule of law. Discussed at para 15.
- S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala, (2015) 4 SCC 400 – Relied upon – legislature cannot directly annul a final judgment. Discussed at para 16.
- Avinash C. v. State of Karnataka (Civil Appeal Nos. 3543–3555 of 2018) – Earlier round – cancellation of the 2011 selection upheld. Discussed at para 4.
- Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch.D 426 – Cited in the Act's Statement of Objects and Reasons; not applied. Discussed at para 13.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 11: "There could be no equity, insofar as the selected candidates are concerned, especially the selection being based on a recruitment which is declared as tainted by the Constitutional Courts and the appointment having been effectuated based on a stillborn legislation; the Act of 2022."
Para 13: "... the power does not lie with the legislature to annul the cancellation, even by a legislation and thus nullify the judgments of the Constitutional Courts."
Para 15: "... it is open to change the law in general by changing the very basis, but it is not open to set aside an individual decision inter parties, affecting their rights and liabilities; which is the exercise attempted by the State in enacting the Act of 2022."
Para 17: "We have no doubt in our minds that the subject legislation is unconstitutional."
Para 18: "... the entire selection having been cancelled, there is no scope for now entertaining a contention of the tainted and untainted candidates to be segregated on the basis of a CID report."
Para 19: "Having found the Act of 2022 unconstitutional, we cannot but observe that the appointments made pursuant to the tainted recruitment will also come to an end."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For State legislatures: A validation law must cure a defect in the law; it cannot simply reverse a court-affirmed cancellation of a tainted recruitment (paras 13–16).
- For 2011 KPSC appointees: Appointments made under the Act of 2022 end, but untainted appointees get a one-time age relaxation in the fresh recruitment, and past service counts for pension if re-selected (para 19).
- For aspirants and the appellants: The fresh recruitment for vacant Group 'A' and 'B' posts is open to them with age relaxation, along with other eligible candidates (para 19).
- For PIL litigants: A PIL cannot be stultified by a petitioner who fails to prosecute it; the Court can transpose genuine litigants as petitioners (para 17).
- For service law practitioners: Absence of prosecution or trial against candidates does not save a selection cancelled as a whole for systemic corruption (para 18).
FAQs on the Karnataka 2011 KPSC Validation Act
1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Srinivasa T. v. State of Karnataka?
It held that the Karnataka Act of 2022 validating the tainted 2011 Gazetted Probationers recruitment is unconstitutional, set aside the High Court's orders upholding it, and directed fresh recruitment with age relaxation (paras 17, 19).
2. Why was the Act of 2022 held unconstitutional?
Because it did not cure any defect in the law; it directly annulled the cancellation of the recruitment that the High Court and the Supreme Court had upheld, which a legislature cannot do (paras 13–17).
3. What happens to the candidates appointed under the Act?
Their appointments come to an end. Untainted appointees may apply in the fresh recruitment with a one-time age relaxation; if selected, seniority runs from fresh appointment, but earlier service counts for pension (para 19).
4. Could untainted candidates be separated from tainted ones?
No. Since the entire selection was cancelled for corruption and nepotism, the Court refused to segregate candidates on the basis of a CID report (paras 4, 18).
5. What did the State of Karnataka say before the Supreme Court?
The State, through Senior Counsel, candidly submitted that the legislation could not be supported (para 10).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1173, Srinivasa T. v. State of Karnataka, Karnataka validation act 2022, KPSC 2011 recruitment, 2011 batch gazetted probationers, validating legislation, legislative overruling of judgment, separation of powers, rule of law, tainted selection, age relaxation, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Supreme Court judgment, service law
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Srinivasa T. v. State of Karnataka
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).