The issue began when a petition was filed in January 2025 by the Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust, alleging that the BPSC question paper was leaked. However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea, and directed the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court.
NEW DELHI: Today, 23rd April, The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of the 70th Bihar Public Services Commission (BPSC) Preliminary Exam, which was held in 2025. The exam was accused of a paper leak, but the apex court found no substantial evidence to support the claim.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Refuses to Cancel BPSC 70th Main Exam Despite Allegations of Irregularities
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan dismissed a group of petitions that challenged the 70th Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) on December 13, 2024, citing allegations of a paper leak.
Senior advocate Anjana Prakash, representing the petitioners, contended that digital evidence such as WhatsApp chats and video recordings clearly indicated that the question papers had been leaked prior to the examination.
The issue began when a petition was filed in January 2025 by the Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust, alleging that the BPSC question paper was leaked. However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea, and directed the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court.
Later, the Patna High Court also refused to hear the case, stating that there was no indication of any serious wrongdoing. Now, with the Mains Exam scheduled to begin on April 25, the Trust has again approached the Supreme Court, requesting the cancellation of the exam.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash presented two documents related to the Bapu Pariksha Parisar exam center.
The Bench, led by Justice Datta, questioned the validity of the claims.
Justice Datta: “Did the exam begin at all centers?”
Sr Adv Anjana Prakash: “Yes, it started at 2 PM.”
Justice Datta: “If the question papers were leaked from that center, how did they end up reaching other centers?”
Sr. Adv Anjana Prakash: “They mentioned on WhatsApp that jammers were installed, but…”
Justice Datta: “Were mobile phones officially prohibited?”
Sr. Adv Anjana Prakash: “No.”
Justice Datta: “Then we will presume that mobile phones were not allowed.”
Court: “Unless you have some clear proof, how can we assume anything? The exam was for 2 hours, and the incident happened after it began. It would have taken about 30 minutes. You need to show some evidence that the answers actually reached the student around 2 PM.”
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves joined in, saying:
Sr. Adv Colin Gonsalves: “The answers were shared on WhatsApp. We also have videos showing many students talking, discussing, and sharing information widely.”
But Justice Datta questioned the credibility of the evidence:
Justice Datta: “Was this information placed before the High Court?”
SG Mehta: “From which examination center are these videos?”
Sr. Adv Colin Gonsalves: “The person who was responsible for conducting the exam is now the one investigating the matter. How can you expect a fair investigation or get proper evidence in such a situation?”
The court responded:
Court: “The court reads the evidence presented, these are the findings of fact, we cannot ignore them. Please show us where the video is.”
Sr. Adv Anjana Prakash: “It’s on page 112 of the writ petition.”
But when the Trust’s lawyer asked for another hearing, the court responded suspiciously:
Court: “Who are you? There’s something suspicious about you. There are many coaching centers involved with you. One of these centers is mentioned.”
SG Mehta: “The exam was canceled at that center.”
Court: “Please show us the location where the announcement was made on the loudspeaker. Provide us with the video clip. In today’s digital age, anything can be created.”
Sr. Adv Anjana Prakash: “The actual situation is different.”
The court asked again:
Court: “What was the main issue that was presented before the High Court?”
Court: “Did all the petitioners come from the same center?”
Sr. Adv Anjana Prakash: “No, we are from different centers.”
On verifying the details in the petition, the court remarked:
Court: “Let’s review the writ petitions to check if there is any valid reason. You have mentioned 18 centers out of 28.”
Court: “The court says there’s no affidavit backing up the claims. Around 20 people joined from different centers, so how could one person know what happened at another center? These are serious accusations without any proof. Let’s proceed with the examination.”
Sr. Adv. Anjana Prakash: “Which center are they referring to? The Bapu Pariksha Parisar exam center… this was the center where the paper leak issue was reported by the DM.”
Sr. Adv. Anjana Prakash: “What should I do as an authority if there’s a rumor about a paper leak?”
Court: “Everything is handled at the Bapu Centre, and that’s why the exam was cancelled.”
Sr. Adv. Anjana Prakash: “There is no report saying that exams in other centers were conducted smoothly. This is mentioned in the response we filed after submitting the petition to the High Court.”
Sr. Adv. Anjana Prakash: “If there are claims of a paper leak, it might have affected others. As the examiner, I could have observed the impact.”
The Bench concluded:
Court: “Madam, please file a more detailed affidavit. Check if you’ve received reports from 912 centers, and provide information about the use of loudspeakers at those centers.”
SG Mehta: “Regarding loudspeakers, we prepare four sets of papers. In one center, we distribute sets 1, 2, 3, and 4, making it impossible to use loudspeakers.”
Court: “The questions are the same, just mixed up. If the question paper is leaked from other centers, there should be 4 weeks to investigate. If it’s announced on loudspeakers, it wouldn’t be possible for the questions to be mixed up. For example, in one set, Question 1 could be about the capital of India, but in another set, it could be about biology. Let’s watch the video and see if we can figure out which exam center it is.”
Later, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves also raised another point:
Sr. Adv Colin Gonsalves: [Pointed out questions from the BPSC exam and from a coaching center.]
The court observed:
Court: “This is a typical question. Outside the Campus Law Centre, there was a person selling ‘dukkis’ (exam tips book), and their success rate was 90%. However, when the examiner cleverly created questions based on these ‘dukkis’ with incorrect answers, 70% of the students got them wrong.Everyone is taking advantage of each other’s weaknesses. Please understand that the exam level is not very difficult. It’s very unfortunate that no exam is reaching a clear conclusion. We are doubting that something unfair is happening.”
With no concrete evidence or affidavits to support the claims of a paper leak, the Supreme Court refused to cancel the exam. The court emphasized that wild accusations without proof are not enough to disrupt a public examination process that affects thousands of candidates.
The Mains exam is expected to proceed as planned from April 25, 2025.
