Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{189079,
        author = {Dr. Neelam Dighe and Asst. Prof. Dipti Thube},
        title = {Constitutional Safeguards, Social Justice, and Institutional Integrity in Public Examinations: A Critical Study of Systemic Failures and Reform Imperatives in India},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2025},
        volume = {12},
        number = {7},
        pages = {4688-4695},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=189079},
        abstract = {The integrity of public examinations is a cornerstone of a fair and meritocratic society, yet recent controversies surrounding the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examinations marked by alleged paper leaks, the re-engagement of blacklisted service providers, technological failures, logistical hardships, and the suppression of peaceful protests have ignited nationwide concern. These incidents transcend administrative lapses, raising serious constitutional and social justice issues. This paper aims to address ethico-legal issues related to public examinations in India, focusing on safeguarding constitutional principles and advancing social justice, while proposing systematic reforms to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in recruitment processes. The study adopts doctrinal; analysis of constitutional provisions, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, and relevant case laws, socio-legal analysis through secondary data, media reports, and comparative case studies of past examination scams. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 16 ensures equal opportunity in public employment; when examination processes are compromised, deserving candidates are deprived of their rights, perpetuating inequality and undermining the Preamble’s ethos. Logistical barriers and lack of transparency disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups, while the suppression of protests challenges democratic freedoms under Article 19(1)(b). 
Commendably, the judiciary has intervened to protect candidates’ rights and uphold fairness, as seen in Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009) and Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE (2015). Beyond punitive legislation, reforms such as transparent contracting, enhanced digital security, grievance redressal mechanisms, and institutional accountability are recommended. Safeguarding examination integrity is not merely an administrative duty but a constitutional obligation essential to protecting meritocracy, ensuring equitable access to public employment, and advancing social justice.},
        keywords = {Social Justice, Equality, Integrity, Constitutional Principles, Democratic Freedom},
        month = {December},
        }