The Supreme Court on Monday, 24 August issued notice on a petition seeking transfer of the investigation into alleged irregularities in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination-2025 from the state's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The plea was filed by social activist Harisharan Devgan, who has sought an independent, impartial, comprehensive and time-bound CBI probe into alleged malpractice in the exam conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) on 19 April.

The Bench and the Petitioner

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana admitted the notice. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, who also serves as Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman, along with advocate Satyam Singh Rajput.

What the Petition Argues

The petition contends that the scale and nature of the alleged irregularities require scrutiny of the entire state recruitment machinery — including the possible role of officials, examination-centre personnel, technical agencies, scanning and evaluation agencies, and other service providers. It argues that the state CID, being part of the same state machinery under investigation, cannot be considered sufficiently insulated to conduct a credible probe.

According to the petition, the state CID had already registered a case and, during the course of its investigation, summoned successful candidates to submit their Paper-I and Paper-II OMR carbon copies. The petitioner argues these candidate-held carbon copies can be cross-verified against original OMR sheets, scanned images, coding and decoding records, evaluation data, and result-generation records held by the JPSC and its service providers.

Why Cancellation Does Not End the Matter

Notably, the preliminary examination has since been cancelled. However, the petition firmly argues that cancellation does not eliminate the need for investigation. 'Cancellation does not obviate the necessity for such independent investigation,' the petitioner submitted, stressing the need to determine whether the examination process was compromised, how any alleged irregularities were carried out, and who — if anyone — was responsible.

The plea also makes clear that the request for CBI intervention is not a personal allegation against state CID officers, but is driven by the magnitude of the alleged irregularities and the structural conflict of interest in having a state agency probe state-linked actors.

Preservation of Records Sought Urgently

The petition has sought urgent court directions for the immediate preservation and secure custody of all original physical and electronic examination records. These include original OMR sheets, candidate-held carbon copies, question papers, answer keys, attendance and biometric records, CCTV footage, examination-centre records, scanning and coding records, evaluation data, server records, audit trails, and result-generation data.

The petitioner has warned that electronic and digital material may be subject to limited retention periods and could be altered, overwritten, deleted, or otherwise compromised with the passage of time, making urgent preservation critical to the evidentiary integrity of any future probe.

The respondents in the matter include the Union of India, the JPSC, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, the state of Jharkhand, the CBI, and the Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Jharkhand. The matter is expected to be heard further after the respondents file their replies.