Supreme Court: Notice Issued for Jharkhand Civil Services Exam 2025 CBI Probe

• The Supreme Court has issued a notice on a Public Interest Litigation seeking a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Competitive Examination 2025.
• The petition, filed by Harisharan Devgan, demands the exam's cancellation, a fresh examination, and a comprehensive CBI investigation.
• The plea argues for a CBI transfer due to the magnitude of allegations, the JPSC's constitutional character, and the need for an investigation insulated from state machinery to ensure independence and public confidence.
• The petitioner also seeks preservation of extensive evidence, including OMR sheets and CCTV footage, and independent audits of the evaluation process.
• The Supreme Court was informed that the state's cancellation of the preliminary examination, which has since been stayed by the Jharkhand High Court, does not negate the necessity for an independent investigation to determine the extent of compromise and identify responsible parties.

An investigation by an agency insulated from the State machinery connected with the subject matter of investigation is necessary to ensure institutional independence and to inspire public confidence in the outcome of the investigation.

The Supreme Court has formally issued a notice in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding an independent, time-bound Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities surrounding the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Competitive Examination 2025. This significant development signals the judiciary's attention to concerns over the integrity of public service recruitment processes in the state. The petition, brought by Harisharan Devgan, specifically calls for the cancellation of the examination, a fresh re-examination, and a comprehensive CBI investigation into the alleged malpractices.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to hear the petition, which was presented by Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra on behalf of Devgan. The PIL underscores the necessity of a thorough investigation, arguing that only a central agency like the CBI can ensure an inquiry that is truly independent, comprehensive, credible, and capable of inspiring public confidence. The court's decision to issue a notice indicates its preliminary assessment of the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a judicial review of the matter.

The Writ Petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeks to transfer the ongoing investigation in CID Case No. 16/2026 from the State Criminal Investigation Department to the CBI. The petitioner's argument for this transfer is not based on any personal allegations of bad faith against the state investigating officers. Instead, it emphasizes the sheer scale and nature of the allegations, the constitutional stature of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), and the intricate involvement of the state's recruitment machinery itself.

The plea contends that an investigation into the Jharkhand Civil Services Exam 2025 CBI probe Supreme Court is warranted because it necessitates scrutinizing the potential roles of various entities, including officials, examination center personnel, technical agencies, and scanning/evaluation agencies. The core legal rationale presented is that an agency insulated from the state machinery involved in the subject matter is crucial for ensuring institutional independence and fostering public trust in the investigation's outcome. This highlights the judicial emphasis on institutional independence and public confidence when considering the transfer of investigations to central agencies.

The PIL outlines a broad scope for the requested CBI investigation, aiming to uncover alleged irregularities, manipulation, malpractice, and compromise in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Competitive Examination–2025, which was conducted by the JPSC on April 19, 2026. The probe would extend to examining the conduct of officials, examination-center personnel, service providers, scanning/evaluation agencies, technical agencies, and any other individuals connected with the examination's conduct, custody, processing, evaluation, and result publication.

Beyond the CBI investigation, the petition also demands the preservation of critical evidence, including OMR sheets, question papers, answer keys, attendance sheets, biometric records, CCTV footage, dispatch registers, exam-centre reports, scanning records, evaluation data, and result-generation data. Furthermore, it calls for independent audits of the OMR scanning, coding, evaluation, and result-generation systems, alongside an assessment to determine if 'tainted' and 'untainted' candidates can be reliably separated based on objective and verifiable material.

The backdrop to this legal challenge is a series of serious allegations concerning the integrity of the preliminary examination, which had already prompted the State CID to register CID Case No. 16/2026 and request OMR carbon copies from successful candidates. A critical aspect of the petitioner's argument is that the subsequent cancellation of the Jharkhand Civil Services Prelims 2025 by the State of Jharkhand, which has since been stayed by the Jharkhand High Court, does not diminish the need for an independent investigation.

On the contrary, the fact that the cancellation is currently stayed makes it even more imperative to ascertain the extent to which the examination process was compromised, the precise nature and mechanisms of the alleged irregularities, and to identify the responsible persons or agencies. This stance underscores the commitment to ensuring independent and credible investigations into alleged irregularities in public service recruitment, even post-cancellation, to uphold the sanctity of the examination system and maintain public confidence in the state's recruitment processes.

This development signals the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring independent and credible investigations into alleged irregularities in public service recruitment, even post-cancellation. Lawyers should note the grounds for transferring investigations to central agencies like the CBI and the judicial emphasis on institutional independence and public confidence, which could inform strategies for challenging or defending similar public processes.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law