The Karnataka High Court has issued notices to the state government and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) chairman on a public interest litigation challenging the nomination of Anekal MLA B Shivanna to the post, placing the appointment procedure and statutory eligibility requirements under judicial scrutiny.
A two-judge bench headed by Justice Anu Sivaraman heard the petition filed by advocate Sudha Katwa on Thursday. After hearing arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, S Umapathi, the bench directed notices to the state government’s Chief Secretary and the KSPCB chairman. The respondents have been asked to file their objections, after which the matter was adjourned.
The petition questions whether Shivanna’s eligibility was adequately examined before his nomination. It refers to Section 4(2)(a) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which requires the chairperson of a state pollution control board to have knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to environmental protection. The provision also recognises experience in the administration of institutions dealing with such matters.
According to the petition, the nomination did not establish whether the required environmental knowledge or practical experience had been properly assessed before the appointment. The court’s notice does not determine the validity of these allegations. The state government and the KSPCB chairman will have an opportunity to respond to the claims.
The petitioner has also raised questions about compliance with the 2024 rules governing the nomination of the KSPCB chairperson and members, as well as the appointment of the member secretary. The rules require the selection committee to publish an open advertisement in at least three national newspapers, including one Kannada newspaper. The petition alleges that it is not clear whether this mandatory process was followed before the nomination was made.
The challenge also concerns the possible duration of the chairman’s term. The petition states that if Shivanna’s nomination was intended to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of the previous chairperson, Section 5(6) of the law would limit the new nominee’s tenure to the remainder of the predecessor’s term. It argues that the nominee should not automatically receive a fresh three-year term in such circumstances.
The case places the appointment of the head of Karnataka’s pollution-control regulator within a wider statutory framework that governs eligibility, selection and tenure. The KSPCB is responsible for regulatory functions relating to water and pollution control in the state, making the legal requirements surrounding its leadership relevant to environmental administration and enforcement.
The High Court has not yet ruled on the allegations or cancelled the nomination. The next stage will be the filing of objections by the state government and the KSPCB chairman, followed by further hearing of the petition.
