Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Thursday, remarked that the examination process is intended to select the most talented individuals through a fair assessment. The court made such observations while dealing with the 2017 Haryana Judiciary exam paper leak, which involved the registrar of the high court with two other candidates. 

Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna remarked, “The process of examination is designed to select the best of talent by way of fair assessment. Equality, sanctity and integrity are the hallmark of system of competitive exams”. 

“This case is classic example of the fact that short-cut usually leads to disappointment. The option of short-cut generally brings you to a place where you never want to reach”, the court further opined. 

The case involves the 2017 Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination, where 109 posts for Civil Judges (Junior Division) were advertised by the Haryana Public Service Commission. The Preliminary examination took place on July 16, 2017. A complaint about a question paper leak was filed by Manoj, the husband of a candidate, Suman, leading to further investigations. The complaint specifically named Sunita and Sushila as being involved in leaking and selling the question paper. An FIR was registered, and investigations revealed that Balwinder Kumar Sharma, the Registrar, leaked the question paper to Sunita due to their close relationship. Sunita, in turn, shared the paper with Sushila and negotiated its sale to other candidates.

During the investigation, mobile phones, laptops, and other electronic devices were seized and analyzed by CFSL. The call records confirmed close contact between the accused parties. The investigation also revealed financial transactions related to the sale of the leaked question paper. Multiple charge sheets were filed against the accused, who were found to be actively involved in the paper leak and its subsequent sale, along with attempts to destroy evidence.

The court noted that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the incriminating evidence should lead exclusively to the hypothesis of guilt, reasonably excluding every possibility of the accused persons’ innocence. Furthermore, the court noted that the proven circumstances are required to form a complete chain consistently pointing to the involvement of the accused in the crime. 

Upon examining the evidence, the court observed that Balwinder Kumar Sharma had custody and control of the final question paper with answer keys, including the question bank initially provided by resource persons. The court rejected Balwinder’s contention that the final question paper was also in the possession of Gurbax Singh, Secretary to Justice A. K. Mittal. The court remarked upon the unlikeliness that the Chairman of the Committee would personally keep confidential records, including the question paper. 

The court observed that the prosecution successfully established its case through circumstantial evidence against the accused individuals, Sunita (A-1), Balwinder Kumar Sharma (A-2), and Sushila (A-3).

The court also remarked “Paper leaks have far reaching consequences leading to detrimental effects on candidates. It creates an atmosphere of unrest, stress and anxiety among the students and affects their motivation to excel academically”. The court added that in a country where unemployment remains a persistent concern, the menace of paper leaks exacerbates delays in recruitment, adversely affecting the efficiency of government departments and administrative agencies, which are already grappling with limited human resources. 

To restore faith in the examination process, the court emphasized that the issue of paper leaks must be addressed by effectively implementing stringent laws. The notification of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, was recognized as a positive step in this direction; however, preventive measures against such malpractices must be introduced through long-term reforms.

Case Title: State v Sunita & Ors