Case 33 · Exam integrity

SSC. The exam that leaked, and kept leaking

Feb 2018 leak, still leaking in 2026

Chargesheets, no convictions

3,097 days since Nobody has been held to account.

Human cost

30.26 lakh registered for CGL 2017 and 15.4 lakh sat Tier-I; 1.5 lakh reached the paper that leaked; the final result came nearly three years after the notification

Financial cost Est

Never costed. The bill is paid in working years lost per delayed cycle; the 2024 anti-cheating law caps a service provider's fine at ₹1 cr

What happened

Questions from the Combined Graduate Level Tier-II paper of 21 February 2018 circulated on social media during the exam window. Candidates occupied the pavement outside the Commission's Delhi office from 27 February until the SSC agreed to recommend a CBI enquiry. The CBI found both a pre-exam leak and remote-access software running on candidates' machines, but said it could not identify everyone who benefited.

Claim against record

What the government said

The government notes it ordered a CBI enquiry within a week of the protests, re-held the affected paper and accepted the Justice G.S. Singhvi committee's reform recommendations, and that the Supreme Court itself declined to find the exam conclusively tainted. The SSC says its 2025 vendor handled only logistics, not question-setting, and that affected candidates were re-tested.

What the record shows

Chargesheets, no convictions

The Supreme Court declined to scrap the exam in March 2020, leaving it to a criminal court where no conviction has followed. No SSC or DoPT official was held responsible. The machinery still fails: in February 2026 the UP and Uttarakhand STFs found two laptops and a router in a 24-inch underground chamber in the server room of an SSC exam centre, used to solve papers remotely at ₹10 lakh a candidate. It was booked under state law, the BNS and the IT Act, not under the central anti-cheating Act the government passed in 2024.

Contested / alleged

Protester claims that the 2025 exam vendor was blacklisted or linked to Vyapam are denied by the SSC and remain unverified.

What accountability should have looked like

A published CBI outcome with named accountability, a statutory deadline between exam and appointment, and the 2024 Act actually invoked when a centre is caught.

Ministers and office-holders responsible

Administrative control of the SSC; no official held responsibleMinistry of Personnel (DoPT)
Conducting body; recommended a CBI probe, announced no internal accountabilityStaff Selection Commission

Naming who held the portfolio is a matter of public record. It is not by itself a finding of personal responsibility for any death or any rupee.

Sources

T1 primary record · T2 reporting · T3 partisan

Ask them officially. File an RTI Know a better source? Add one

Cite or export this case

Citizens' Accountability Ledger, "SSC. The exam that leaked, and kept leaking" (Feb 2018 leak, still leaking in 2026), case-51. https://whoisresponsible.xyz/case/case-51/

JSON for this case The whole ledger as CSV

Quote the case id rather than the number on the card. The id never changes; the number shifts whenever an older case is added ahead of this one.