Kerala High Court Denies Bail in Alleged Exam Paper Leak Case: ‘Sanctity of Examination Must Be Maintained’
Safiya Malik
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by an individual accused of leaking examination question papers in advance of public examinations. The court, after perusing the case records and evidence, stated that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary for the ongoing investigation. The prosecution contended that the accused had allegedly gained unauthorized access to examination materials and disseminated them online, raising concerns about the integrity of the examination system and fairness for students.
The case revolves around allegations that question papers for the Second Terminal Examination of 2023 and the First and Second Terminal Examinations of 2024 were leaked through a YouTube channel operated by the accused, a chemistry teacher from Kozhikode. The Commissioner of Examinations and the Director of General Education reported the matter to the Crime Branch, which led to the registration of a case under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
According to the prosecution, videos predicting the exact set of questions in the same sequence as they appeared in the examinations were published on the accused’s YouTube channel, ‘MS Solutions,’ before the scheduled exams. The investigative team, following a preliminary inquiry, concluded that the accuracy of the predictions strongly suggested unauthorized access to official examination materials. Consequently, Crime No. 2097/2024 was registered by the Crime Branch Police Station, and proceedings were initiated under Sections 316(2), 316(3), 316(5), 318(2), 318(4), 61(2)(a), and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had access to confidential question papers and used his YouTube channel to share the leaked content in a manner that appeared as legitimate predictions. The authorities initiated an investigation after receiving multiple complaints, and experts from the academic community reviewed the matter, expressing concerns about the likelihood of question papers being leaked. The forensic examination of the video content revealed that the structure and arrangement of the questions presented in the accused’s videos closely matched the official examination question papers, leading to further suspicion.
The counsel representing the petitioner contended that the allegations were baseless and that he had merely relied on his experience as an educator to predict likely examination questions. His defense argued that he had formulated the questions based on patterns from previous years' examinations and standard textbooks, with no unauthorized access to confidential materials. The defense further submitted that teachers and coaching centres often release expected question papers for students' reference and that the petitioner’s actions were no different from such common practices.
Additionally, the defense claimed that the accused was being unfairly targeted to divert attention from broader systemic issues within the education department and tuition centres. It was further contended that several other institutions and YouTube channels had also released question predictions for the same examinations, and some of them had similar success rates in guessing probable questions. The petitioner asserted that his case was selectively taken up for investigation, while others who had made similar predictions were not subject to scrutiny.
The Kerala High Court reviewed the prosecution’s evidence, including statements from academicians and subject matter experts, who maintained that the precise order of the questions matched the official examination papers, making it unlikely that the accused had relied solely on previous patterns. The court recorded:
“The experts in this field gave statements to the Investigating Officer that, unless the real question papers were seen, such a prediction is impossible.”
The court also examined the video content and the English question paper for the 10th standard, noting that the arrangement of questions in the accused’s prediction video mirrored the official examination paper. The court further observed:
“Question Nos. 18 to 26 were predicted by the petitioner and circulated in his YouTube channel in the same order as in the question paper, that is important.”
The court found merit in the prosecution’s assertion that the case required further investigation. It reviewed the case diary, which included statements from multiple teachers and academicians who expressed the view that an exact sequence match between a predicted set of questions and the official question paper was unlikely without prior knowledge of the actual content. The court also examined forensic evidence presented by the investigating officers, which suggested that the leaked question paper may have been accessed by unauthorized persons before the examination.
The court noted that even after the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer to provide his statement, the prosecution maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to complete the investigation. The investigating officer submitted that the accused’s statement did not satisfactorily explain how the exact order of questions was predicted with such precision. The court remarked:
“Even after the interrogation of the petitioner based on the order passed by this Court, the prosecution submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, and this Court cannot deny the same.”
The court further observed that the ongoing investigation aimed to determine whether there were other individuals involved in the leak and whether any collusion existed between the accused and officials responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of examination materials. The court stated:
“If at all, there is any leakage of questions, the source of leakage is to be found out. For that purpose, the investigating officer wants to question the petitioner in custody.”
The court noted that the matter involved the larger question of safeguarding the integrity of the examination system and ensuring that students were not unfairly disadvantaged due to such leaks. It recorded:
“The sanctity of examination refers to the importance of maintaining the integrity, fairness, and authenticity of the examination process. It involves upholding the highest standards of honesty, transparency, and accountability.”
The court, while rejecting the bail application, stated:
“The petitioner has to surrender before the investigating officer and cooperate with the investigation. I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the BNSS.”
The court also stated the need to prevent similar occurrences in the future and stated:
“Let the student’s study well and appear for the examination, and let them enjoy the goosebumps of happiness in the examination hall, instead of seeing the leaked question papers before the examination by cheating others.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: S. Rajeev; V. Vinay; M. Muhammed Firdouse; M. S. Aneer; Sarath K. P.; Anilkumar C. R.,; K. S. Kiran Krishnan; Dipa V.
For the Respondents: Sri. Noushad K. A., Senior Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Shuhaib v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:18342
Case Number: B.A. No. 619 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
[Read/Download order]
