The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union of India, the Jharkhand government, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other parties on a public interest litigation seeking an independent probe into alleged irregularities in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination.
Bench seeks formal responses; petition presses for CBI
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, directed the named respondents to file replies to the petition filed by social activist Harisharan Devgan. Senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, representing the petitioner, told the court that students had been protesting for over a month against alleged malpractices connected to the state‑conducted examination.
“How can a former judge...? These are not inquiries. This is an investigation. There is forensic examination required or something else. All these things can be done by an agency,”
The Chief Justice emphasised during the hearing that the allegations suggested the need for an investigation with forensic and technical steps, rather than an inquiry by a retired judge. At one point, the bench asked for clarification on whether the petition related to multiple examinations.
Mr Mishra clarified the petition concerns the JPSC examination, while also referring to the Staff Selection examination. The petitioner has urged either a CBI probe or an inquiry by a former Supreme Court judge, but the bench indicated the factual matrix appeared to call for a statutory investigative agency.
Petition seeks cancellation, fresh exam and safeguarding of evidence
The plea, filed through advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, has sought cancellation of the examination and directions for a fresh test. It specifically requests an impartial, comprehensive and time‑bound CBI probe into alleged irregularities surrounding the exam held on 19 April 2026, referred to in the petition as the 14th JPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination.
The petition called for protection of both physical and digital evidence so that they remain untampered, listing materials it said were vital to any proper investigation. These include the original and candidate‑held OMR carbon copies, CCTV recordings and server audit logs, according to the petition reported in court.
Earlier developments and public reaction
Following declaration of results on 2 July 2026, a carbon copy of a candidate’s OMR answer sheet circulated online and raised questions about evaluation. That disclosure ignited protests and hunger strikes across the State, with students demanding an independent probe and broader structural reforms to the examination system.
The Jharkhand government has already initiated some action: the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has been conducting inquiries into the matter. The petitioner argued before the apex court that an independent central agency such as the CBI should examine the allegations rather than the CID.
What the bench asked and next steps
During the brief hearing the bench sought clarifications on the scope of the petition and noted that certain investigative measures — for instance, forensic analysis and technical examination of servers — would be required if the allegations were to be properly probed. The court issued notice to the respondents and will take the matter forward after receiving their replies.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 19 April 2026 | Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (14th JPSC prelim) held |
| 2 July 2026 | Results declared; OMR carbon copy circulated online |
| 24 August 2026 | Supreme Court issues notice on petition seeking CBI probe |
Implications for stakeholders
The petition and the court’s decision to issue notice carry immediate implications for multiple stakeholders:
- Candidates: Those who sat the exam and protested are seeking finality — either cancellation and a fresh test or assurance of an independent inquiry into alleged irregularities.
- Jharkhand government and JPSC: Both have been placed on notice and will need to explain the steps already taken and how evidence has been preserved.
- Investigative agencies: The CID is already probing the matter locally; the petitioner has contended that only an independent central agency can ensure impartiality.
The Supreme Court will proceed after receiving the written responses from the Union, the State, the JPSC and other respondents named in the petition.
