The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the state government and other respondents on a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Anekal MLA B. Shivanna as chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB).
A division bench led by Justice Anu Sivaraman ordered that notice be served in the petition filed by Chikkaballapur farmer leader R. Anjaneya Reddy. The bench heard the matter on Thursday and adjourned the proceedings after directing notices to the respondents, including the KSPCB chairman.
The petition challenges Shivanna’s appointment as chairman of the state’s primary pollution-control authority. According to the petitioner, the appointment is contrary to the objectives of the Water and Air Pollution Control Acts, constitutional provisions and guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The allegations are part of the petitioner’s case and have not been adjudicated by the High Court. The court’s order to issue notice does not amount to a finding against the appointment or a final decision on whether the appointment complies with the law. The respondents will have an opportunity to present their position before the court.
Shivanna was appointed chairman of the KSPCB on September 25, 2026. The board is responsible for administering the state’s pollution-control framework, including matters connected with air and water pollution regulation. Its decisions can affect industrial approvals, environmental compliance, monitoring and action against pollution sources across Karnataka.
The challenge therefore places the appointment within a wider question of how statutory environmental institutions are constituted and governed. The petitioner has specifically referred to the purpose of the water and air pollution-control laws, constitutional provisions and Supreme Court guidance while questioning the eligibility and legality of the appointment. The supplied report does not provide the full text of the petition or set out the government’s response.
The High Court has asked the respondents to respond to the petition. The proceedings will determine how the legal challenge develops, including the arguments advanced by the petitioner and the explanations offered by the state government and other parties. No final order on the validity of Shivanna’s appointment was reported in the proceedings covered by the source.
The next stage is expected to follow the service of notice and filing of responses by the respondents. Until the court issues further directions, the appointment remains the subject of a pending legal challenge rather than a judicially determined violation.
