Pushpangya Patel And 25 Others v. Counsel

rise to two public law concerns, first of which relates to transparency in the conduct of the examinations by UPSC, and second relates to crystallisation of a grievance for appropriate redressal.

4. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG for the Union, Mr. Kapil Sibal. Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Counsel for the Union Public Service Commission. Mr. Jaldeep Gupta, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Pranjal Kishore to assist us as Amici Curiae.

5. We are happy to dispose of these Writ Petitions in view of the affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission accepting reformative suggestions of the learned Amici Curiae.

6. The short and necessary facts leading to the order that we are going to pass on the basis of the affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission are as follows:-

7. The Petitioners have contended that the 3 WRIA No. 3339 of 2026 answer-key, cut-off marks and marksheet of the preliminary examination should be published immediately after the examination is conducted. They would also contend that publication of this information at the end of the examination process is against principles of transparency and fairness.

8. In the written submission, the learned Amici Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Mr. Pranjal Kishore have suggested the following reform; "35. The current practice of providing the answer key to the preliminary examination after the final examination is completed does provide a modicum of transparency in as much as if it is found that egregious errors have crept in at the stage of the preliminary examination, the Court is not powerless to give appropriate directions. If, however, it is felt greater transparency is needed to be given, the following suggestions are made: a. A provisional answer key to the preliminary examination should be published a day after the examination is held. b. Examinees should be allowed to file objections to the questions as well as to the answers in the provisional answer key on the Prep portal, within a week. e. Each objection should be supported by three authoritative sources. Objections which are not so supported should be rejected at the threshold. d. In cases were objections are recetved, UPSC should refer the same to a committee of experts, 4 WRIA No. 3339 of 2026 who shall re-examine the same. This can be done by the same commitee that already exists to decide objections to the questions. The final answer key can then be decided for the evaluation of the answer-sheets. Alternatively, the disputed question and answer can be excluded for evaluation for all candidates. Such a course was suggested by this Hon'ble Court in Kanpur University (supra) at Paragraph 18; and Ran Vija, Singh (supra) at Paragraphs 19 and 31. e. The final answer key (post-consideration of the objections) need not be disclosed at this stage and can be disclosed at the end of the examination process, as is the case now. J. In case a particular answer in the final answer key that is published after the results is found to be incorrect by a Court, the Court should mould relief in a manner that the entire process is not disturbed. This can be done for instance, by allowing the successful petitioner a chance to directly answer the mains examination in the next year."

9. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Service Commission has submitted that the Commission has deliberated upon various factors, including suggestions of the learned Amici. Considering the enormity of the examination that it conducts year after year, balancing the value of transparency with efficiency, practicality integrity, a conscious and a balanced decision has been taken by the Commission. This decision is reflected in the affidavit filed before us, which we are 5 WRIA No. 3339 of 2026 extracting hereinbelow in its entirety; "AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2- UPSC I. Himanshu Kumar, Joint Secretary (Exam), Union Public Service Commission, presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the aforesaid Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner wherein UPSC has been impleaded as Respondent. The said Writ Petition is pending consideration and final hearing by this Hon'ble Court.

2. That during the pendency of Writ Petition UPSC has deliberated upon various factors including the suggestion of Ld' Amicus appointed by this Hon'ble Court to assist in the matter. That as a consequence of comprehensive deliberation and considering the pious role assigned to the UPSC as a constitutional body, the Commission has arrived at a conscious and well considered decision as under: Publishing the Provisional Answer key, after the Preliminary Examination is conducted. b) Representations/objections will be sought from the candidates who appeared in the examination. Each such representation/objection should be supported authoritative sources. Objections which are not so supported should be rejected threshold. However, Commission will decide whether the sources produced are authoritative or not. The Provisional Answer Key objections/representations received 6 WRIA No. 3339 of 2026 candidates on question paper as well as answer keys shall be placed before set/team of experts of the concerned discipline/subject. who shall undertake an in-depth consideration of all the aspects and will finalise the answer keys. Such finalized answer key by the aforesaid team of subject/discipline experts shall constitute the basts of the declaration of the results of Preliminary Examination. e) The final answer key shall be published after declaration of the final results.

3. The Commission destres to start following the modalities explained in the aforesaid decision as expeditiously as possible. The decision taken by the UPSC is considered to be an effective and adequate redressal of the grievances raised in the petition and to enhance the level of transparency in the functioning of the UPSC and also to further the cause of public interest. The matter being sub-judice before this Hon'ble Court, it is considered appropriate to place the aforesaid decision for kind consideration by the Hon'ble Court and for disposing of the Writ Petition in the light of the decision. 4. It is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass the appropriate orders and dispose of the petition in the light of the decision extracted herein above."

10. The affidavit explains that the Commission seeks to implement the above decision as expeditiously as possible.

11. In this view of the matter, we can dispose of these Writ Petitions and Transfer Petition in 7 WRIA No. 3339 of 2026 terms of decision as indicated in the affidavit filed by the Commission. The Commission may formulate necessary guidelines implementing the decision.

12. So far as the individual grievances of the petitioners are concerned, they may approach the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, if so advised. If the Writ Petitions are filed, the High Court may consider and dispose them of expeditiously.

13. Before parting, we place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. counsel as assisted by Mr. Pranjal Kishore as Amici Curiae. We must also appreciate the stand take by the Public Service Commission and the positive assistance rendered to the Court by Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Counsel of this Court.

14. With these observations, the Writ Petitions and the Transfer Petition are disposed of.

15. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of."

6. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submits that if answer key is published after final result, petitioners will be highly prejudiced since they will miss a chance to dispute revised answer key which is a valuable right of petitioners being candidates in examination.

7. Learned counsel for respondent-Commission submits that Commission is bound by judgment of Himanshu Kumar and others (supra).

8. I have considered above submissions and I am of the view that there is substance in argument of learned Senior Advocate for petitioners that if revised key is published after final examination result, they will not be able to agitate it to the extent that they will not be permitted to appear in 8 WRIA No. 3339 of 2026 main examination rather they will have to wait for years since it is not a case where recruitment process in question is undertaken on yearly basis.

9. Still considering that above referred judgment passed by Supreme Court has accepted the affidavit of respondent that revised answer key will be published only after main examination is conducted, this Court has no other option but to accept it, therefore, relief sought in present writ petition cannot be granted.

10. However, this order will not come in the way if petitioners approach Supreme Court or the Commission concerned, while taking decision of answer-key on the basis of above referred order, will take note of circumstances under which this writ petition is filed.

11. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. March 16, 2026 N. Sinha (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)