Assam HC Extends Ruling That 2013–14 Exam Commission Reports Cannot Be Used To Start Disciplinary Action Or Prosecution Against Deka

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the State to keep a show-cause notice dated 30 November 2023 in abeyance until the conclusion of Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016, raising the issue of parallel departmental and criminal proceedings.

In a related batch, the High Court had delivered a common judgment in Aoichariya Jibon Baruah v. State of Assam & Others, reported at 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 2673, and directed, among other things, that specified Commission reports could not be used against the petitioners for disciplinary proceedings or prosecution.

After that judgment, the petitioner’s original disciplinary proceedings were dropped and a fresh show-cause notice was issued on 14 May 2026.

The Court applied the principle of parity by extending to the petitioner the relevant directions in Aoichariya Jibon Baruah.

Those directions held that the Commission’s inquiries concerning the Combined Competitive Examinations of 2013 and 2014 violated Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and that the reports’ findings concerning the petitioners could not be used against them in disciplinary proceedings or prosecution; the reports were not otherwise quashed and could inform government policy.

A proceeding becomes infructuous where the impugned action has ceased to operate and the relief sought no longer has practical significance; a challenge to a later, distinct action constitutes a fresh cause of action.

The petition concerned only the departmental proceedings initiated by the 30 November 2023 notice. Those proceedings had been dropped after the common judgment, so an order staying them pending the criminal case would serve no practical purpose.

The fresh notice issued on 14 May 2026 gave rise to a separate cause of action and was not before the Court in this petition.

However, because the petitioner was similarly situated to those covered by Aoichariya Jibon Baruah, the Court extended the benefit of that judgment’s Clauses (i)–(iii) to him.

It nevertheless directed that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 139 of the common judgment in Aoichariya Jibon Baruah.