Bengaluru: Senior IPS officer Alok Kumar, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services in Karnataka, has written to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh, a 1989-batch IAS officer of the Karnataka cadre, seeking verification and correction of statements made before the Supreme Court concerning his alleged involvement in a phone-tapping case.
In a letter dated October 5, Kumar reportedly outlined 13 points disputing the state’s submissions about the case. He maintained that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had concluded its investigation and that a special court had accepted the closure report in February 2024.
The representation follows proceedings concerning the Karnataka High Court’s decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by Kumar, to investigate alleged irregularities in Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) recruitment cases.
Kumar, a 1994-batch IPS officer of the Karnataka cadre, expressed concern that references to the phone-tapping case had affected his professional reputation. He requested the state government to verify the official records and ensure that future submissions before the Supreme Court accurately reflected the case’s status.
Key Points in Alok Kumar’s Letter
The IPS officer’s representation reportedly raises concerns about how the phone-tapping case was described during the Supreme Court proceedings.
Key points include:
- Letter to the Chief Secretary: Kumar wrote to Karnataka Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh on October 5.
- 13-point representation: He sought verification of the information presented before the Supreme Court.
- CBI closure report: He maintained that the investigation into the phone-tapping allegations had been concluded.
- Court’s decision: A special court accepted the closure report in February 2024.
- Request for correction: Kumar urged the government to ensure that its legal submissions accurately reflected the official record.
The letter represents Kumar’s account of the matter. His claims about the accuracy of the state’s submissions have been reported as his objections and should be distinguished from any independent judicial finding on the dispute.
Alok Kumar Says Phone-Tapping Investigation Was Closed
The controversy relates to allegations of illegal interception of telephone calls that emerged in Karnataka in 2019, when Kumar was serving as Bengaluru Police Commissioner.
The CBI subsequently registered a case and investigated allegations connected with the interception of telephone communications and the possible leaking of intercepted audio recordings.
The CBI filed a closure report in June 2021, stating that its investigation had not established that Kumar had leaked lawfully intercepted audio files to a journalist. A special court accepted the closure report in February 2024.
Kumar referred to the official record in his letter to the Chief Secretary and objected to the suggestion that a CBI investigation remained pending against him.
He wrote that he was “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.”
He also stated that the submissions made before the Supreme Court were inconsistent with the factual position reflected in official records.
According to the report, Kumar maintained that the CBI investigation had been closed and that he was concerned about the effect of the statements on his professional standing.
Why Did Alok Kumar’s Name Come Up Before the Supreme Court?
The issue arose during the Karnataka government’s challenge to a High Court order directing the formation of an SIT to investigate alleged irregularities in KPSC recruitment.
On September 21, the Karnataka High Court ordered a fresh investigation into alleged irregularities involving the recruitment of approximately 400 veterinary officers and a separate recruitment case concerning the daughter of the suspended KPSC chairman.
The High Court appointed Kumar to head the SIT and included other police and forensic officials in the team. It directed the team to complete its investigation within 100 days of commencement and submit periodic progress reports.
The Karnataka government challenged the order before the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the state should have a say in selecting the investigating officers.
During the hearing on October 1, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state, raised concerns about Kumar’s appointment by referring to the earlier phone-tapping case. Kumar subsequently disputed the information presented about the status of that investigation.
Supreme Court Allows Karnataka to Reconstitute the SIT
The Supreme Court subsequently modified the High Court’s order and allowed the Karnataka government to replace two members of the proposed SIT.
The court directed that the revised team be constituted within 10 days and left the selection of its head to the state Director General of Police. The revised composition is to be reviewed by the High Court.
The proceedings concern the composition and mandate of the team investigating alleged recruitment irregularities; they do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing by Kumar in the separate phone-tapping case.
Alok Kumar Seeks Verification of Official Records
In his representation, Kumar asked the Chief Secretary to intervene and ensure that the state’s legal submissions did not contain unverified or inaccurate allegations concerning him.
His request centres on the distinction between the earlier CBI investigation, whose closure report was accepted by a special court, and the references made to that case during proceedings over the proposed KPSC recruitment SIT.
The matter highlights the importance of accurately presenting the status of earlier investigations when an officer’s past record is raised in separate judicial proceedings.
The immediate issue raised by Kumar is whether the information placed before the Supreme Court accurately reflected the official status of the phone-tapping case. Any further response from the state government or clarification in subsequent court proceedings would help establish how the dispute is resolved.
Read Also: Karnataka CM Questions HC Choice of IPS Officer for KPSC Probe, Govt Weighs KPSC Closure
