Papers leaked, trust broken: High Court tells Maharashtra to win back MPSC aspirants

The Bombay High Court has told the Maharashtra government to restore the trust of Maharashtra Public Service Commission aspirants, observing that students who agitate over lapses in the recruitment process cannot be termed anti-nationals. 'If they are agitating it means there are some serious grievances,' the court said, in remarks that have become the moral centre of a widening examination scandal. The court's intervention came as the state asked protesting students to return to classes while it addresses vacancies, procedural failures and a confirmed paper leak.

The immediate trigger was the Drug Inspector examination conducted by the MPSC for the Food and Drug Administration, where a paper leak was confirmed and three candidates were found to have directly benefited. Several alleged accomplices were arrested. For aspirants who spend years preparing for a handful of posts, the finding confirmed their worst suspicion: that the contest is not merely hard, but rigged at the point where merit is supposed to be measured. Protests intensified in Pune, led in part by MLA Rohit Pawar, with demands for the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar.

The political response has been unusually sweeping. On 5 October, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis formally recommended that the Governor constitute a high-level inquiry panel under Article 317 of the Constitution, headed by a retired High Court judge and reporting within three months, to examine current and former MPSC chairpersons and members. Because MPSC office-bearers hold constitutional posts, removal requires inquiry and action involving the President and the Supreme Court. MPSC secretary Mahendra Harpalkar has been relieved of his duties, and the Commission has postponed examinations, including the State Services Main, and decided to re-evaluate the 2025 Main answer sheets after objections over evaluation.

For the aspirants, the court's language matters as much as the probe. It reframes protest not as indiscipline but as evidence, a signal that the institution must repair itself rather than pathologise the young people who queue for its examinations. The question now is whether a three-month inquiry, a postponed calendar and a re-evaluation can rebuild what a leaked paper destroys in a single morning: the belief that effort, not access, decides who serves the state.