Legislature Cannot Directly Annul Judicial Decrees Without Removing Basis of Decision: Supreme Court Strikes Down Karnataka Validation Act 2022 Reviving Tainted 2011 KPSC Recruitment

"While making a law retrospectively and validating it, notwithstanding the decision of a Court of law, it is permissible to alter the very basis of an earlier decision but cannot directly annul the final judgment by a subsequent legislation, which act of the legislature would be declared unconstitutional." Holding that the legislature cannot sit in appeal over judicial determinations or enact a statute to overturn binding inter partes judgments without removing the underlying defect, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran on October 29, 2026, struck down the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 as unconstitutional.

The controversy stems from a 2011 recruitment notification for 362 Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1997, which was cancelled by the State Government in 2014 after a CID inquiry unearthed extensive manipulation, nepotism, and identical interview marks awarded to 566 candidates. The cancellation was concurrently affirmed by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court in Avinash C. v. State of Karnataka, with subsequent pleas seeking to resume the selection process from the written examination stage also being rejected. More than a decade later, the State enacted the validating Act of 2022 to regularize the appointments of the selected candidates, prompting unsuccessful candidates to challenge the legislation before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the High Court.

Whether the State Legislature, under the guise of a validating enactment, can directly abrogate and nullify final judgments of Constitutional Courts that set aside a public recruitment on proven grounds of corruption and nepotism?

Whether candidates selected through a recruitment process declared entirely vitiated and tainted by Constitutional Courts can claim equitable retention in service under a retrospective validating statute?

Opening the judgment, the Bench lamented the political shifts influencing administrative actions, observing that "when the winds of politics change direction, it is the common man, who gets caught in the storm." The Court noted that six appellants had relentlessly pursued their challenge after their legitimate career aspirations were derailed by systemic irregularities in the recruitment process.

Legislature cannot sit in appeal over final judgments without removing their underlying legal basis

The Supreme Court reiterated that while a legislature holds the competence to enact retrospective legislation removing the defect pointed out by a court, it cannot directly overturn an adjudication inter partes. Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in In re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the Court stressed that setting at naught judicial review by overriding a decree against the State sounds the death knell of the rule of law.

The Court placed direct reliance on S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala, observing that the legislative function consists of enacting law rather than declaring what the law shall be in respect of concluded judicial disputes. The Bench held that the Karnataka Legislature did not cure any statutory defect but merely purported to sit in appeal over final judgments that had annulled the tainted recruitment process.

Hardship to candidates cannot justify legislative revival of an illegal selection

Drawing parallels with Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, where an Ordinance regularizing illegal medical admissions was struck down, the Bench noted that mere hardship to selected candidates does not confer validity upon an unconstitutional statute. The Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2022 disclosed no legal defect cured in the cancellation process, rendering the validation a direct encroachment upon judicial power.

The Bench observed that the invocation of the legal principle in Taylor v. Taylor by the State legislature to justify regularisation was fundamentally flawed. Because the cancellation of the recruitment process had already received the imprimatur of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the power did not lie with the legislature to annul the cancellation through a statutory fiat.

No equity can be claimed by beneficiaries of a tainted recruitment process

Rejecting the plea of the appointed candidates who claimed to be untainted by the CID chargesheet, the Bench held that when an entire recruitment process is vitiated by pervasive corruption, segregating candidates interferes with the purity of public employment. The Court made it clear that no equitable consideration arises in favor of candidates whose appointments were effectuated on the strength of a stillborn legislation.

The Court severely criticized the High Court for summarily dismissing the challenge against the validating enactment through cryptic orders, noting that the High Court had upheld an enactment bordering on the absurd. The Bench ruled that in a Public Interest Litigation, a petitioner cannot withdraw proceedings without the leave of the court, and transposed the appellants to ensure substantive judicial scrutiny.

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court declared the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 unconstitutional and directed that all appointments made thereunder shall come to an end. Considering the lapse of fifteen years, the Court ruled out resuming the recruitment from the mains stage and instead directed the State to notify fresh recruitment for vacant Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under existing rules, granting a one-time age relaxation to the appellants, petitioners before the Tribunal, and untainted appointed candidates, with service benefits limited to pension calculations for the period already served if reselected.

Date of Decision: October 29, 2026

Case Title: Srinivasa T. and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Others | Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21195-21196 of 2023)

Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran