‘Almost Akin To Civil Death’: Delhi HC Rebukes SSC Over 3-Year Ban On Candidate

Last Updated:October 03, 2026, 11:17 IST

The court was hearing a petition filed by the SSC against a January 7 order of a tribunal.

A photo of the Delhi High Court (PTI)

The Delhi High Court has criticised the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for cancelling a candidate’s candidature and barring him from appearing in its examinations without first allowing him to respond.

The court observed that imposing such a ban at the beginning of a candidate’s professional career could have consequences extending far beyond a temporary setback, describing it as “almost akin to civil death”.

“The consequences of cancellation of candidature of a candidate and debarment in an examination cannot be forgotten. It results in far more than a mere roadblock in the career of the candidate concerned. The news spreads. The candidate is tarnished as one who does not play fair. The decision results in long-lasting social stigma which, perhaps, may haunt the candidate for the remainder of his life. To a candidate at the cusp of his professional career, it is almost akin to civil death,” a bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Nivedita Anil Sharma said in its September 28 verdict, which was released on October 2.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the SSC against a January 7 order of a tribunal. The tribunal had directed the commission to follow the principles of natural justice before cancelling a candidate’s candidature and imposing a three-year ban on his participation in SSC examinations.

The candidate had taken the SSC Multi-Tasking Staff Examination in 2016. On September 29, 2017, he received a memorandum informing him that his candidature had been cancelled and that he would be barred from appearing in SSC examinations for three years.

He later approached the tribunal, which issued its January 7 order asking the SSC to follow the principles of natural justice before taking such action.

The SSC had alleged before the tribunal that the candidate helped another candidate seated next to him during the examination. The allegation was based on observations made by the Central Supervisor/Hall Invigilator, who had reportedly submitted a report to the commission.

When the matter reached the High Court, the SSC’s lawyer argued that the action against the candidate had been based on the report submitted by the Supervisor overseeing the examination.

The High Court rejected the SSC’s petition, holding that the Supervisor’s report could not be treated as conclusive evidence.

“At the very least, the respondent was required to be visited with a show cause notice, inviting his comments on the report and afforded an opportunity of being heard before an action for cancellation of candidature was taken. The SSC did not deem it appropriate to extend the courtesy of granting such an opportunity to the respondent,” the court said.

The bench also questioned why the SSC had challenged the tribunal’s order in the first place.

“This is, to say the least, an extremely unhappy state of affairs. We are completely at a loss as to how the SSC can claim to be aggrieved by such an order. Indeed, had the SSC complied with the order and issued a show cause notice to the respondent, this litigation itself could have been avoided,” the court said.

Quick Answers

Powered by

Ask News18

Why did the Delhi High Court criticize the Staff Selection Commission over a candidate’s ban?

The Delhi High Court criticized the SSC for cancelling a candidate’s candidature and imposing a three-year exam ban without allowing him an opportunity to respond, describing the severe career impact as ‘almost akin to civil death’.

What evidence did the SSC rely on to penalize the candidate from the 2016 examination?

The SSC based its disciplinary action and three-year exam ban on a report submitted by a Central Supervisor or Hall Invigilator alleging that the candidate helped another person seated next to him during the 2016 Multi-Tasking Staff Examination.

What did the Delhi High Court rule regarding the supervisor report used against the candidate?

The High Court held that the supervisor’s report could not be treated as conclusive evidence and ruled that the candidate was entitled to a show cause notice and a fair hearing before any penal action was taken.

Powered by

Ask News18

About the Author

Aanchal SinhaSub Editor

Aanchal is the Sub-Editor at News18.com, with more than four years of experience in national and international news. My work involves covering breaking news, politics, current affairs and developments…Read More

Read More