Delhi HC Seeks SSC’s Response on Ban Against Public Discussion of Exam Papers

The Delhi High Court has questioned the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) over its decision to prohibit candidates, educators, and social media platforms from discussing or analyzing question papers after examinations. The court observed that the restriction appears disproportionate and inconsistent with long standing practices where candidates commonly review and discuss papers once the examination is over.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, which issued notice to the SSC and directed it to file its response within three weeks.

The bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Vikas Kumar Mishra challenging the SSC’s notice dated September 8, 2025.

The notice, issued under the provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, directs that no individual, institution, or platform shall discuss, analyze, or disseminate the contents of question papers after the completion of any SSC examination.

It further warns that violation of the order would attract penal action under the 2024 Act and other applicable laws.

During the hearing, the bench expressed concern over the nature and extent of the prohibition. Court remarked that it is difficult to justify a complete ban on discussions once an exam has concluded, noting that such interactions have historically formed part of the learning process for candidates.

The court orally observed that a restriction of this kind could interfere with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The bench also asked the Commission to clarify the legal basis for the order and to explain how such a broad restriction could be considered necessary to prevent unfair practices in examinations.

The petitioner, represented by advocates Suresh Sisodia and Sushant Dogra, argued that the SSC's directive is arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was submitted that post-examination discussions or analysis of question papers pose no threat to examination integrity and are, in fact, essential for transparency and academic growth.

The plea states that the notice seeks to impose an unreasonable prior restraint on speech, thereby violating Article 19(1)(a), without satisfying the test of reasonableness laid down under Article 19(2).

The petitioner further contended that the SSC has exceeded its statutory powers by attempting to curb legitimate educational discourse through executive instructions issued under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.

The petition points out that the Act was enacted to address serious offences such as paper leaks, tampering, and organized cheating in public recruitment examinations. However, it does not authorise the Commission to impose post-examination speech restrictions on the general public. According to the petitioner, extending the ambit of the law to penalise post-exam commentary or analysis undermines its very purpose and risks curtailing open academic discussion.

It was also submitted that the SSC’s notice, by threatening legal consequences, could have a chilling effect on educators, coaching institutions, and content creators who routinely review question papers for the benefit of aspirants.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that even in cases where restrictions on speech have been upheld, courts have consistently required such measures to be narrowly tailored and supported by compelling state interest. In this instance, the notice neither identifies a specific threat nor provides a justification proportionate to the restraint imposed.

The petitioner emphasized that in the absence of any ongoing examination or pending evaluation process, the right to freely discuss question papers cannot be curtailed merely on apprehensions of misuse.

The court took note of these submissions and indicated that it would examine whether the SSC’s notice meets constitutional and statutory standards.

It directed the Commission to file a detailed response explaining the necessity of the order, and whether it has any rational nexus with preventing unfair means. The bench’s initial remarks, questioning the validity of a blanket gag order, suggested that the court views such restrictions with skepticism, particularly in the context of educational and competitive examinations that engage a large section of the public.

The SSC conducts recruitment examinations for various posts in Union ministries, departments, and organizations, attracting lakhs of candidates across the country. Following recent paper leak controversies in other national and state-level recruitment tests, the Commission had issued the September 8 notice warning that unauthorized dissemination or discussion of exam content on any medium, whether physical or digital, would be treated as a violation of the 2024 Act.

The measure was reportedly aimed at curbing the circulation of question papers through online platforms and messaging networks.

However, the court’s intervention now brings into focus the scope and interpretation of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, and the permissible limits of administrative control over public discourse.

The outcome of the case may have wider implications for digital education platforms and exam preparation forums that rely on analyzing question papers as part of their regular instructional activity.

The matter will next be heard after the SSC files its reply.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Date of hearing: September 8, 2025