A trial outlasting memory: 24-year-old MPSC exam scam drags on

In one of Maharashtra’s longest-running corruption trials, the passage of time has compromised witnesses testimony, weakening the prosecution’s case

MUMBAI: When the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) started conducting examinations in 1999 for recruitment to posts like Mantralaya assistants, sales tax inspectors and police sub-inspectors, few would have anticipated that the alleged irregularities surrounding those tests would still be under judicial scrutiny more than two decades later.

A trial outlasting memory: 24-year-old MPSC exam scam drags on

In early 2026, the prosecution is still leading evidence in the case – witness by witness, document by document – in what has become one of Maharashtra’s longest-running corruption trials.

The first signs of irregularities emerged at the preliminary examination stage. Discrepancies were detected in the question paper, prompting the MPSC to take the unusual step of declaring all candidates who had taken the examination as having passed, allowing them to advance to the next stage.

However, the controversy did not end there. Allegations soon followed relating to the main examinations, including claims that original answer sheets had been replaced with fake ones, that computerised marks had been tampered with, and that interview scores were arbitrarily inflated to favour select candidates.

As complaints mounted and internal scrutiny followed, the matter escalated beyond the commission. In 2001, the irregularities surfaced formally within the MPSC system, and in 2002, the Mumbai unit of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered a case, triggering a wide-ranging criminal investigation. Over time, multiple first information reports (FIRs) were registered, several chargesheets were filed, and related cases were clubbed for trial.

During the investigation, 29 people were arrested, including then MPSC chairperson, SD Karnik, former examination controller Sudhakar Sarode, MPSC member Sayli Joshi, and deputy superintendent of police, Baban Kadam, among others.

The case inches forward

At present, more than 400 prosecution witnesses have deposed across a clutch of connected trials arising from the same recruitment process. At least 11 witnesses have been examined in the first fortnight of 2026 alone, underlining how the case, registered by the ACB in 2002, continues to inch forward even as the events it seeks to reconstruct recede further into the past.

Among the more consequential recent depositions in the first week of this month was that of Shriganesh Sahebrao Kangude, a police inspector, who told the court that he had personally drafted and forwarded an anonymous complaint to the ACB in July 2002 after learning of alleged irregularities in the MPSC examinations. Kangude, now 50, said the complaint, prepared in his own handwriting and later signed at the ACB office, named intermediaries and candidates whom he believed had benefited from leaked examination papers.

He deposed that he had been approached with offers to secure leaked question papers and eventual selection in return for money, which he refused. Identifying a photocopy of the complaint shown to him in court, Kangude said its contents were true and based on his knowledge at the time.

The evidentiary cost of time

More than 20 years later, the trial has entered a phase defined less by institutional records and more by human recollection – or its limits. Over the last several weeks, the special court has recorded the evidence of retired government officials who served as invigilators, as well as candidates whose examination results were questioned.

A recurring pattern has emerged. Many witnesses have denied that signatures on answer sheets are theirs, while others have said they are unable to confirm signatures or recall events after more than two decades. Others have retracted or distanced themselves from statements recorded by the ACB during the early years of the investigation. In many instances, witnesses have been declared hostile at the prosecution’s request.

Among those examined recently was Jayprakash Mansaramji Ambade, a retired Mantralaya official who later rose to the rank of under-secretary. While acknowledging that he had been deputed as an invigilator, Ambade denied that the signature attributed to him on an answer sheet matched his specimen signature. He pointed to differences in handwriting and the quality of the paper on which the answer sheet was written.

Similar evidence was recorded from other former invigilators posted at centres in Parel and Sion, including Shankar Shamrao Gavhale, Manoj Vitthal Patil and Madhav Kundlik Avhad. Several of them were declared hostile after resiling from their earlier statements.

Questions about process

The recent depositions have also raised questions about the investigative process, although within carefully drawn limits. Several witnesses told the court they did not remember their ACB statements being read out or explained to them. Some said panch witnesses were absent when specimen signatures were taken. Others denied having been shown documents later attributed to them. However, none of the witnesses accused investigators of fabricating evidence.

A case built on documents

The prosecution’s case across the connected matters rests largely on documentary evidence – answer sheets, attendance records, custody forms, computer data and forensic opinions comparing questioned writings with specimen samples.

Defence counsel have argued that without consistent and reliable oral corroboration from invigilators and candidates, the chain required to establish substitution of answer sheets or a broader conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt remains incomplete.