Guwahati: The report of the Justice Biplab Kumar Sharma Judicial Inquiry Commission on the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) examination scam has come under legal scrutiny. The Gauhati High Court is now examining the validity of the findings.
The scam had rocked Assam and drawn nationwide attention. The issue surfaced after nearly 23 gazetted officers approached the High Court.
The Assam government had suspended them in 2023 based on the Commission’s findings. The officers have challenged both the inquiry report and the subsequent departmental actions. These include show-cause notices and suspension orders.
The court heard the matter on January 29, 2026. Counsels for the suspended officers argued that the Commission violated mandatory provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. They cited non-compliance with Sections 8(B) and 8(C).
According to them, the Commission failed to give the officers adequate opportunity to defend themselves. They also alleged denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses and to engage legal counsel meaningfully. On this ground, they sought to set aside the report and all actions arising from it.
The petitioners claimed that although the Commission issued notices and received replies, it never formally accused them. Moreover, it did not summon them again for further hearings. As a result, they argued that the inquiry denied them a fair opportunity to present their defence. They said the process violated statutory safeguards.
During the hearing, Additional Advocate General Nalin Kohli defended the government’s stand. He told the court that the candidates were allowed to inspect relevant materials. He also referred to parallel criminal proceedings in the case.
In particular, he cited the recovery of tabulation sheets from the residence of former APSC chairman Rakesh Pal. However, legal observers described the government’s defence as weak.
Manas Pratim Barua, administrator of the forum ‘Fight Against Injustice of APSC’, said the government counsel did not place several crucial facts before the court. He said that in their written replies to the Commission, several beneficiary candidates admitted discrepancies in their answer scripts and tabulation sheets after verification.
However, they claimed ignorance about how the discrepancies occurred. Barua added that the notices, replies and final report show that none of the candidates sought any further opportunity to present additional defence.
He also questioned the claim that the Commission denied the candidates the right to cross-examine witnesses. Barua argued that the Commission relied mainly on documentary evidence. This included forged answer script pages and illegally enhanced marks. He said the inquiry did not hinge on oral testimony.
Barua further raised concerns over the prolonged suspension of officers since 2023. He noted that the departmental proceedings have remained inconclusive for years. As a result, fresh legal claims arise every month. He recalled repeated observations by Justice Debashish Barua of the Gauhati High Court that an inquiry report, without an action taken report, has no independent legal standing.
He also alleged that policy decisions of the Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma-led government have contributed to the present situation. The Judicial Inquiry Commission had recommended cancelling the entire 2013 civil services recruitment due to systemic corruption. However, the government did not accept the recommendation.
Barua criticised the decision to suspend the officers instead of terminating their services. He said the suspended officers continue to draw 75 percent of their salary and can engage senior legal counsel. At the same time, he alleged that some officers facing independent charge-sheets were not even suspended.
Warning against setting aside the Commission’s report, Barua said such a move would amount to burying one of Assam’s biggest recruitment scams. He added that public opinion is increasingly questioning the government’s intent and handling of the APSC case as the legal battle continues in the High Court.