Debarment based on CCTV footage cannot stand without effective access to that evidence.

Rahul Kumar, a candidate in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2024 (CGLE-2024), appeared in Tier-II on 18 January 2025.

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) alleged that he interacted with and looked at the screen of the candidate seated next to him, and relied on CCTV observations and answer-sheet/log analysis showing identical option selections for 127 questions, including eleven incorrect responses.

After issuing a show-cause notice on 26 March 2025 and considering Kumar’s reply, the SSC cancelled his candidature and debarred him from its examinations for seven years by order dated 20 June 2025.

Kumar challenged both the notice and order, contending that the case was covered by the Delhi High Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin, W.P.(C) No. 7108/2026, decided 16 September 2026.

Whether the applicant was given a meaningful and effective opportunity to meet the CCTV material and other evidence relied upon to cancel his candidature and impose a seven-year debarment.

Whether the show-cause notice and consequential order could be sustained where the applicant had not been shown to have received an effective opportunity to deal with that material, causing prejudice.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and fair play, requiring a meaningful and effective opportunity to address material relied upon for an adverse decision with serious civil consequences; a merely formal opportunity to reply is insufficient where it does not enable the affected person to examine and controvert that material.

It relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin, which held that withholding CCTV footage relied upon against a candidate may cause manifest prejudice and vitiate the decision-making process.

The Tribunal also considered Examination Notice clause 18.1(15), providing for seven years’ debarment for use of unfair means, and clauses 14.2 and 19 concerning provisional candidature and the finality of the Commission’s decisions; it held that those provisions do not displace the requirement of a fair procedure or exclude judicial review for breach of natural justice.

The SSC relied on CCTV observations to support its allegation that Kumar interacted with and looked at the adjacent candidate’s screen, and used answer-pattern analysis as corroboration.

Although Kumar received a show-cause notice and submitted a reply, the record did not demonstrate that he had been given an effective opportunity to examine and challenge the underlying CCTV material; stating the authority’s conclusions was not enough.

Because the CCTV evidence formed an integral part of the reasoning, the answer-pattern evidence did not eliminate the prejudice arising from the lack of an effective opportunity to address the footage.

The Tribunal confined its decision to procedural fairness and made no finding on whether the alleged malpractice had in fact occurred.

It quashed the show-cause notice dated 26 March 2025 and the order dated 20 June 2025, and directed the respondents to restore his candidature, declare his result and take consequential steps according to his merit position and service preference, subject to his meeting eligibility requirements, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The order did not determine the merits of the unfair-means allegation; if an FIR had been lodged or a criminal case was pending, the respondents could issue a fresh show-cause notice and decide it after affording an effective and meaningful opportunity of defence.

The OA was allowed, with no order as to costs.