CJI bench issues notice on the JPSC prelims writ — and refuses to farm the probe to a retired judge.

A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana on Monday, 24 August 2026, issued notice on a writ petition by activist Harisharan Devgan seeking an independent, time-bound Central Bureau of Investigation probe into alleged malpractices in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination. Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput appears. The case is Harisharan Devgan versus Union of India and others, writ petition (civil) number 1047 of 2026. Issuing notice is an operative step. It is not a finding of malpractice.

This is Monday’s notice order. It is not a reprint of the listing already shipped on another cutting. A cause-list date asked the bench to sit. Monday’s order tells respondents to answer.

The respondent list conflicts across public accounts and this desk will not merge the two writings. One public account of the order says notice went to the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Another public account says notices went to the Centre, the Jharkhand government and other authorities. Both lines are recorded. This page will not invent a single respondent schedule the two accounts do not share.

The examination is the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Competitive Examination–2025, conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2026 on 19 April 2026. The principal relief sought is transfer of the investigation from the State Crime Investigation Department to the Central Bureau of Investigation so that the nature, extent, mechanism and impact of alleged irregularities can be objectively determined. The petitioner has clarified that the public-interest litigation does not seek cancellation of the preliminary examination merely on media reports; whether the examination can be relied upon should follow an evidence-based probe. That sequencing is the writ’s own. It is not a Supreme Court direction until the bench writes further.

Other prayers ask the court to secure physical and digital evidence, including original and candidate-held optical-mark-recognition carbon copies, closed-circuit television footage and server audit logs, to prevent tampering. Those are prayers. They are not preservation orders until the bench issues them.

Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra told the bench that students have been protesting for over a month; though the State cancelled examinations, the High Court stayed that decision, with the State indirectly supporting the challenge. He sought the Central Bureau of Investigation or a retired Supreme Court judge. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant replied that a former judge cannot be asked to handle the investigation. The bench therefore refused to farm the probe out to a retired judge. That refusal is the Monday line this cutting will keep. Notice issued is the other Monday line. Neither line decides the merits of the alleged malpractices.

New Delhi holds the Supreme Court order. Ranchi holds the Commission and the State investigation geography. Form B and any poll date are not notified. This desk will not invent a stay on counselling, a fresh answer key, or a merged respondent list.

Until the respondents answer and the bench speaks again, the public ledger is a Monday notice in writ petition (civil) 1047 of 2026 before the Chief Justice of India and two companion judges, a refused retired-judge farm-out, a request to move the file from the State Crime Investigation Department to the Central Bureau of Investigation, evidence-preservation prayers covering optical-mark-recognition sheets and server logs, a petitioner who refuses cancellation on media reports alone, and two unmerged writings of who was noticed — the State and the Commission on one public account, the Centre, the State and other authorities on another. The notice decides none of the alleged irregularities yet.