SSC CGL paper leak case: Delhi court junks plea to summon 2 witnesses as accused

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has dismissed a plea asking two persons, cited as witnesses by CBI in the 2017 SSC paper leak case, to be summoned as accused in the case to ensure a fair trial. Special judge M P Singh was hearing the plea of accused Kapil Dhama booked by the CBI for committing alleged irregularities in the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) combined graduate level examination of 2017.

The alleged malpractices and question paper leaks occurred during the tier-II stage of the exam, the court noted. In an order on August 25, the court law was clear on the prosecution deciding who to prosecute and declining who to array as co accused and instead examine a person as a prosecution witness.

The court noted the allegations against the witnesses, namely, Mohammed Imran and Parveen, stating as candidates in the examination, they offered money to the main accused, who were instrumental in leaking questions.

"The roles attributed to them are thus not identical to those of the principal culprits. Rather, they occupy a distinct position in the overall narrative of the alleged offence. Their involvement appears to be peripheral when compared to the central figures orchestrating the crime," the court said.

Both were found to possess knowledge of critical information that could shed light on the broader conspiracy. Dhama’s plea was observed to have stated of the several eyewitnesses in the case, only Imran and Parveen had named him. "If that be so, it is all the more necessary that Imran and Parveen are examined as witnesses in order to unearth the criminal conspiracy and decipher how the questions came to be leaked," the court said.

Also read SSC chairman assures glitches will be resolved before CGL exam amid protests

Summoning 'not at all warranted'

Their evidence would likely play a pivotal role in breaking the main culprits’ ring, exposing their modus operandi and unravelling the chain of events that led to the leakage of the examination questions, it added.

"Their evidence is not merely relevant, but indispensable to establishing the nature and extent of the criminal nexus. It is through their cooperation and disclosure that the prosecution may be able to bridge evidentiary gaps and substantiate the case against the principal culprits," the court said.

Dismissing the plea, the court said summoning Imran and Parveen as accused was "not at all warranted".

In March 2020, the Supreme Court refused to scrap the examination, which was marred by allegations of paper leak and malpractices. It, however, made it clear that the declaration of results would be subject to final outcome of the case.

The exam has a four-tier system, in which tier I and tier II are computer-based whereas in tier III and IV, job applicants take up a descriptive paper and a computer proficiency test or skill test.