The Supreme Court declined to hear a public interest litigation seeking an independent, multidisciplinary expert panel to assess systemic and digital weaknesses in the country’s public-examination framework. The CJI Surya Kant sat with Justice Joymalya Bagchi on the bench, which dismissed the petition after noting that the Union government had already established a High-Powered Task Force to address the matter.
The petition was filed by Deen Dayal Saini. During the hearing, Saini accepted that the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions had formed the task force and that it had sought suggestions up to September 13, 2026. The petitioner had not used the available opportunity to present his proposal to that body.
The bench said the subject had already been “taken cognizance of” by the appropriate authority. The court therefore found no basis to proceed with the writ petition and dismissed it. The existing task force, and the petitioner’s failure to approach it, was cited as the reasons recorded by the bench rather than an assessment by the court of the proposed system’s technical merits.
The PIL also wanted the proposed committee to separately study a model described by the petitioner as a permanent, secure digital examination infrastructure built on a hybrid hub-and-spoke arrangement. The plea portrayed this proposal as a centralised, strongly protected architecture intended to prevent examination malpractice and question-paper leaks while reducing operational inefficiencies. Those claimed benefits were the petitioner’s description of the model, as relayed by the outlet, rather than findings attributed to the bench.
The court refused to entertain the PIL because a competent authority had already recognised the broader issue and had opened a channel for suggestions. According to media reports, the order also recorded that Saini had not appeared before the task force despite that opportunity.
Details about the task force’s membership, mandate, timetable beyond the September 13 deadline, or any response to Saini’s specific infrastructure proposal. It also did not report whether he planned any further representation. The account was limited to the dismissal, the task force’s prior constitution, the invitation for suggestions and the principal elements of the relief sought in the PIL.
With inputs from PTI