SC To Hear Plea For CBI Probe Into Jharkhand Exam

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana is likely to take up the petition filed by activist Harisharan Devgan.

The public interest petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks the court’s urgent intervention over concerns about the integrity, fairness, transparency and credibility of the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Competitive Examination 2025. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission conducted the examination on April 19, 2026, under Advertisement No. 01/2026.

The petitioner has sought transfer of the investigation from the state CID to the CBI to ensure an impartial probe into public officials and examination agencies.

The plea said the controversy could not be treated merely as a dispute involving individual candidates or isolated instances of malpractice. It sought scrutiny of the entire examination process, including the preparation and printing of question papers; coding, storage, transportation and distribution; conduct of the examination; custody and scanning of OMR sheets; evaluation; access to electronic data; and generation and publication of results.

It also sought directions to immediately secure all physical and digital evidence, including original OMR sheets and candidates’ carbon copies, CCTV footage and server audit logs, to prevent tampering.

The petitioner said allegations or public protests alone could not justify cancelling an examination and clarified that cancellation was not being sought merely on the basis of media reports or accusations.

The primary relief sought was an independent, impartial, comprehensive and time-bound CBI investigation to objectively establish the nature, extent, mechanism and impact of the alleged irregularities, the plea said.

It said the question of whether the preliminary examination results could be safely relied upon should be decided later on the basis of objective and scientifically verifiable evidence.

The plea also raised the constitutional question of whether a public recruitment examination conducted by a constitutional authority retained the minimum fairness, transparency, reliability and institutional integrity required for its results to form a lawful basis for public appointments.