Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand High Court has appointed retired high court Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary to monitor/observe the ongoing SIT probe over alleged irregularities into the 1th to 13th Jharkhand Public Service Commission Exams, over allegations of harassment of candidates. 

The high court had in an interim order last month stayed State Government orders cancelling recruitments made through 11th to 13th Jharkhand Public Service Commission Exams. 

The court was hearing a batch of writ petitions concerning the legality of the notifications by which the entire advertisement and selection process was cancelled. 

During the hearing counsel appearing for batch of petitioner candidates, upon instruction, submitted that the SIT, which is investigating the matter is perhaps noticing/summoning few innocent candidates also and there are instances of gross harassments and exercising undue pressure. He said that he doesn't have to say anything about the investigation, but he requested the Court to do something so that the innocent people should not be harassed. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan in his order said:

"Before parting, it is necessary to refer the argument of Mr. Sinha, inasmuch as, there might be apprehension in many candidates, who are genuine, that they may be harassed; at the same time, it is also important for the investigating agency in order to effectively investigate to summon / issue notice any person on the basis of materials collected during the investigation.

It is no doubt that summoning anyone by itself cannot be termed as harassment, but at the same time, having regard to the principles of fairness and interest of justice, this Court feels it appropriate to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary (Retd.) to monitor / observe the investigation done by SIT so that no citizen is harassed due to the ongoing investigation".

The court clarified that the monitoring / observance by Justice Chaudhary is completely independent of the present proceedings in the pending petitions. 

"Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary (Retd.) is appointed as Monitor/Observer in order to look into complaint(s) of harassment. The monitoring by itself shall not preclude the agency to proceed with the investigation and the SIT would be free to investigate and enquire in the matter strictly in accordance with law. It is expected that the SIT shall conduct and conclude the investigation in a free and fair manner and," the court added. 

The State, while opposing any restriction on the investigation, submitted that the investigating officers were entitled to summon or issue notices to persons wherever considered necessary on the basis of material collected during investigation. However, the State's counsel fairly submitted that apprehensions of high-handedness could be monitored by an independent person, such as a retired Judge of the High Court.

The Court further directed that any appointed candidate who receives a summons should fully cooperate with the investigation. If such candidate has a complaint of harassment, he or she may approach the retired Judge, who would examine the genuineness of the complaint. If the complaint is found to be genuine, the same would be conveyed to the head of the SIT for remedial action, with the SIT required to report back to the Judge along with the progress of the investigation.

The Bench emphasised that the appointment of the Observer was intended to ensure a free and fair investigation, dispel apprehensions among persons being investigated and provide a “check and balance”.

It clarified that the arrangement should not be construed as interference with the investigation or as an adverse comment on the SIT's work.

"It is made clear that this Court is not making any remark on the on-going investigation in any manner," the court said. 

The Court also directed the State to bear the logistics, office support and remuneration/honorarium of the Justice Chaudhary. 

The interim order granted earlier was directed to continue until further orders. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 7 October 2026 at 11:30 AM.

Case: Subhash Murmu and Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 6512 of 2026

Appearance: For the Petitioners – Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. (Through V.C.); Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv.; Mr. Amrita Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Adv.; Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv.; Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Adv.; Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Adv.; Mr. Deepankar, Adv.; Mr. Shray Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Sonal Tiwary, Adv.; Mr. Kumar Chayan, Adv.; Mr. Nikhil Anan, Adv.; Mr. Harishika Verma, Adv.; Mr. Ritesh Ranjan, Adv.; Mr. Dhruva Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Mohit Mukul, Adv.; Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Ran, Adv.; Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Adv.; Mr. Vaishnavi Kaushik, Adv.

For the Respondents – Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (Through V.C.); Mr. Rohitashya Roy; Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA; Mr. Achyut Keshav, Sr. AAG; Mr. Vibhour Mayank, A.C. to A.G.; Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Adv.; Mr. Prince Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Ruchi Mukti, A.C. to AAG-IA.

For the Proposed Intervenor – Mr. T. Singhdev, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Anum Hussain, Adv. (Through V.C.); Mr. Kumar Harsh, Adv.; Mr. Subashish Rasik Soren, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: