Question paper leak more heinous than murder, says Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that leaking question papers for competitive examinations and jeopardising the future of lakhs of students is an offence more heinous than murder. The remark came while dismissing the bail plea of Janak Kumar Dhruv, an accused in the alleged Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) recruitment scam.

The case pertains to alleged corruption, question-paper leak and manipulation of the CGPSC State Service Examinations conducted in the years 2021 and 2022 due to which relatives of influential were selected by compromising the recruitment process.

“…A person who facilitates leakage of question papers for competitive examinations plays with the careers and futures of lakhs of young aspirants who are burning the midnight oil in preparation for these tests. Such an act is more heinous than murder because, while the killing of a person affects one family, the destruction of the careers of lakhs of aspirants adversely impacts society as a whole,” noted the judgment delivered by the single-judge Bench of Bibhu Datta Guru on Wednesday (August 5, 2026).

Mr. Dhruv, who served as the secretary of the CGPSC during the relevant period, is accused of helping his son, Sumit Dhruv, secure selection as a Deputy Collector. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted that, in his capacity as Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Dhruv was entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining strict confidentiality over all matters relating to examinations conducted by the PSC.

However, it is alleged that during the relevant period, the applicant, along with other co-accused, breached the confidentiality of the examination process for illegal direct and indirect gains and provided question papers to his sons. As a result, one of his sons, Sumit Dhruv (A-9), was selected as a Deputy Collector,” the CBI submitted before the court.

The counsel for the applicant, however, argued that Mr. Dhruv had been falsely implicated in the case. It was further contended that he neither participated in the alleged paper leak nor was there any material to establish his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences.

After hearing the arguments, the court rejected the bail application and said that the alleged charges levelled against the accused persons including the present applicant could by no stretch of imagination be termed as ordinary charges. “The action of the accused persons is a clear example of ‘fence eating the crop’,” the order noted.

The court also said that the prosecution had collected material to show that the applicant’s son had practiced four specific topics, all of which subsequently appeared in the Main Examination, allegedly helping him secure selection as a Deputy Collector.

“The recoveries effected from the residence of the applicant, coupled with the statements of witnesses and other documentary evidence, prima facie indicate his involvement in the alleged conspiracy,” the order stated.