Author: Kainaat Afreen
To the Point
On February 21, 2018, shortly before the SSC CGL Tier II examination began, images of the question paper along with the answers were shared on social media platforms. Thousands of candidates, alleging unfair advantage, protested across India. The SSC initially called it a “technical glitch” and postponed the exam only in select centres. Under mounting pressure, the Government authorised a CBI probe. The Supreme Court, through a public-interest litigation, stayed declaration of results and described the system as “tainted.” The CBI registered an FIR in May 2018 naming 17 private individuals (including Sify Technologies employees and aspirants), but failed to name any SSC officials. Although arrests of private persons followed in mid‑2019, no government servant was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, resulting in procedural and jurisdictional failures. By mid‑2025, the investigation remains in limbo, revealing systemic gaps in accountability and oversight.
Abstract
This Article offers an in‑depth legal analysis of the SSC CGL Tier II paper‑leak episode of February 2018. This also explores the chronological facts of the incident, the constitutional implications with a focus on Article 14, applicable statutory and criminal provisions under the Indian Penal Code, comparative perspectives on public service law, relevant judicial precedents, shortcomings in the CBI’s investigation, and the legal remedies pursued before the Supreme Court. The analysis leads to concrete recommendations for reform in public examination and recruitment regimes, focusing on contractual liability of vendors, audit mechanisms, procedural fairness guarantees, and enforceable timelines for investigation and prosecution in public
employment malfeasance cases.
The Proof
1. Digital leak evidence: On 21 February 2018, multiple screenshots purportedly of Tier-II CGL question papers emerged on WhatsApp and other platforms before the exam began. This prima facie breach of confidentiality suggested large‑scale commercial leakage .
2. Candidate protests: From late February, thousands of aspirants staged sit‑in protests outside SSC headquarters in Delhi, lodging affidavits and memoranda demanding a CBI inquiry into alleged malpractice
3. Administrative response: SSC termed the phenomenon a “technical glitch,” cancelled only selected shift exams, and scheduled re‑examination on 9 March 2018, a partial measure many perceived as inadequate .
4. Supreme Court litigation: A PIL filed in early March 2018 prompted the SC to issue notice and hear the case. On 20 March, the Court dismissed the PIL only after government confirmed a CBI preliminary enquiry had commenced .
5. Supreme Court Interim Orders:
This section also highlights the Supreme Court’s interim directive issued on 31 August 2018, which suspended the declaration of results for the SSC CGL and CHSL 2017 examinations. The Court cited serious irregularities, describing the recruitment process as “primarily tainted,” and barred the appointment of any candidates who may have benefited from the compromised procedure. Additionally, in May 2019, the Court constituted a high-level six-member expert panel, chaired by Justice G.S. Singhvi and including figures like Nandan Nilekani and Vijay Bhatkar, to recommend systemic reforms in the examination and recruitment process.
6. CBI FIR and Arrests:
This part also addresses the CBI’s filing of a Regular Case FIR on 22 May 2018, naming ten Sify Technologies employees including Sant Prasad Gupta along with seven examination candidates. This marked the initiation of formal investigations and arrests in connection with the SSC exam malpractice. The accused faced
charges including criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and impersonation, with claims that remote access software such as TeamViewer was used to unlawfully assist candidates during the examination.
7. Investigation scrutiny: In May 2018, CBI interrogated Sify’s COO CR Rao to determine who had backend access to the question bank and its chain of custody .
8. Arrests & charge‑sheet: In June 2019, Akshay Kumar Malik and two associates alleged masterminds were arrested. The charge‑sheet filed by CBI covered IPC Sections 120B (conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 467/468 (forgery), and PC Act Section 13(1)(d) in relation to public servant misconduct, though no SSC official was named due to evidentiary gaps .
9. Stalled process: Despite these steps, no public servant has been arraigned under the PC Act even as of mid‑2025. Supplementary charge‑sheets (including one filed June 2025 naming AbdulKhalek for money collection) add to the case file, but core institutional accountability remains unaddressed .
Case Laws
1. Article 14, Constitution of India
Legal Principle:
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. This applies directly to government recruitment processes, ensuring that every candidate has an equal opportunity to compete fairly.
Relevance to SSC CGL Scam:
The paper leak provided undue advantage to certain candidates, thereby violating the equal opportunity principle. Candidates who did not have access to the leaked paper were unfairly disadvantaged, making the selection process arbitrary and discriminatory.
2. State of U.P. v. Chandra Deo Rai, (2008) 15 SCC 512
Legal Principle:
This case reaffirmed the constitutional and administrative duty of recruiting authorities to ensure fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination in public employment. Any lapse or procedural irregularity that vitiates these principles can render the selection invalid.
Relevance to SSC Case:
The SSC, as a constitutional recruiting body, failed to discharge its responsibility by:
Allowing a breach of exam confidentiality
Not ordering an immediate and full-scale cancellation
Permitting re-exams in select centres only
These actions violated the very standard laid down in Chandra Deo Rai, making the recruitment process legally questionable.
3. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
Legal Principle: This decision is widely recognized for laying down the principle of legitimate expectation as a key doctrine in administrative law. It held that when a public authority promises to act fairly, the public has a legitimate expectation of transparent and just treatment.
Relevance to SSC Case:
Aspiring candidates had a legitimate expectation that the SSC exam:
Would be conducted securely,
Would ensure no unfair advantage, and
Would uphold the meritocratic process.
The paper leak and SSC’s partial remedial action (only cancelling some sessions) violated this legitimate expectation, giving rise to constitutional and administrative culpability.
4. Sowmithri Vishwanathan v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2007) 8 SCC 721
Legal Principle:
The Supreme Court ruled that any malpractice in recruitment or examinations that affects fairness and transparency vitiates the entire selection process. Even if individual candidates were innocent, the entire exam can be scrapped if the process is compromised.
Relevance to SSC Case:
Given the evidence of widespread leakage, the entire Tier-II examination process stood tainted. Instead of only re-conducting exams for select centres, SSC was legally bound (under this precedent) to cancel the exam across all centres.
The SC’s later stay on result declaration was an indirect recognition of this principle.
5. Rajesh R. Sharma v. State of U.P., (2005) 1 SCC 50
Legal Principle:
This case dealt with charge-sheeting and prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It held that:
A complete charge sheet must include all accused,
Especially public servants, if the case involves corruption or administrative abuse, and
Omission of such individuals can invalidate prosecution under the PC Act due to lack of jurisdiction.
Relevance to SSC Case:
In the SSC scam, CBI filed charges against private persons (Sify employees and students), but failed to name any SSC officials, even though they were allegedly complicit.
Due to this lapse:
The special court was legally barred from proceeding under the PC Act.
The chain of administrative accountability was broken, impeding justice.
This was a serious procedural flaw, violating the guidelines of Rajesh R. Sharma.
6. CBI v. Anupam Jindal, (2019)
Legal Principle:
This case emphasized that for a special judge under the PC Act to take cognizance of a case, at least one public servant must be arraigned.
Failing that, the court lacks jurisdiction under the Act, even if private individuals are named.
Relevance to SSC Case:
Although the scam involved irregularities in public sector recruitment, the CBI did not name a single Staff Selection Commission official in its charge sheet.
This: Made prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act untenable
Frustrated the very legislative intent of the Act, which is to punish public corruption
Rendered the entire criminal investigation jurisdictionally flawed
This judgment clearly applies to why prosecution in the SSC case remains in limbo.
Conclusion
The SSC CGL 2017 paper‑leak scandal exposed grave vulnerabilities in recruitment system integrity. The failure of SSC to promptly and completely neutralise the leak, reliance on private vendors (Sify) without enforceable oversight, and partial, accelerator-driven re-examination undermined fairness. Although judicial intervention via the Supreme Court prevented flawed appointment, the investigative process by the CBI has stalled especially for institutional actors.
Fault lines include:
Vendor dependence without statutory audit or accountability.
Delays in charge‑sheeting public officials, resulting in loss of PC Act jurisdiction.
Lack of enforceable timelines for investigations and public service selection disclosures.
Recommendations
1. Mandatory contractual clauses binding exam vendors to confidentiality, with penalties, independent audits, CCTV logs, and chain-of-custody documentation.
2. Statutory framework mandating investigative timelines and inclusion of public servants in FIRs where misconduct is alleged.
3. Transparent grievance redressal systems and continuous judicial oversight to ensure fairness and accountability in recruitment procedures.
4. Legislative or regulatory audit oversight to safeguard Article 14 rights in public appointments.
Unless such systemic reforms are undertaken, high-stakes public recruitment will remain susceptible to corruption, fraud, and institutional failure.
FAQs
Q1: Why is Article 14 invoked in an exam‑leak case?
Because fairness in public recruitment is constitutionally entrenched. A leaked exam corrupts competitive equality.
Q2: Why didn’t the CBI charge SSC officials under PC Act?
The FIR named unnamed SSC officers but subsequent investigation failed to produce evidence to identify or name them in charge‑sheets, depriving the special court of jurisdiction under PC Act .
Q3: Can candidates who benefitted be appointed?
The Supreme Court stayed results and barred appointment of those benefited from the flawed exam until final legal adjudication on merits .
Q4: Which IPC offences are alleged?
Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 467/468 (forgery), plus criminal misconduct (Section 13(1)(d) PC Act) were included in the charge‑sheet, though no government official was named.
Q5: Did arrests secure convictions?
Only private actors (e.g. Malik, Mathur & associates) were arrested by mid‑2019. No conviction of SSC officers has occurred as none were charged due to evidentiary insufficiency .
Q6: How does this compare with Vyapam or JSSC‑CGL leaks?
Like Vyapam, this scandal had vendor collusion, impersonation, and breach of public exam integrity. Even in Jharkhand’s 2024 JSSC‑CGL, the CID investigates, but no structural reform in vendor oversight has emerged.
