The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission is facing mounting scrutiny following allegations of regional imbalance in the viva voce shortlist of the judicial services examination. On 24 January 2026, candidates and civil society groups raised concerns over the distribution of shortlisted candidates, prompting protests and demands for an independent investigation into the selection process. According to representations made by aspirants, the viva shortlist allegedly includes a disproportionately higher number of candidates from the Jammu region, with only a limited number selected from Kashmir. The issue has reignited debates around fairness, transparency, and credibility in high-stakes public recruitment.
Allegations Surrounding JKPSC Judicial Exam Viva Shortlist
The controversy centres on claims that only a small number of candidates from Kashmir qualified for the viva voce stage, leading to allegations of “regional imbalance” in the shortlisting process. Aspirants have questioned whether evaluation standards were applied uniformly across regions. Candidates have demanded greater disclosure, including paper-wise cut-offs, marking schemes, moderation methods, and viva assessment criteria. Protesters argue that transparent disclosure is essential to restore confidence in the judicial recruitment process.
JKPSC Response to Bias Claims
The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission has denied all allegations of bias. The commission has stated that the judicial examination process was conducted strictly in accordance with established rules and procedures. JKPSC officials have maintained that evaluation protocols, including written examinations and viva voce assessments, followed prescribed norms. The commission has emphasised that regional considerations do not influence merit-based recruitment and that due process was observed at every stage.
Demand for Independent Inquiry and Process Reforms
Despite the official clarification, candidates and civil groups are pressing for an independent, time-bound probe to ensure impartial review. There have been calls for the inquiry to be overseen by a retired judge or an external panel with access to evaluation records. Before outlining possible reforms, stakeholders have highlighted the need for systemic safeguards. Proposed measures include:
- End-to-end anonymisation of answer scripts
- Double-blind evaluation of written papers
- Standardised viva voce scoring rubrics
- Public disclosure of paper-wise cut-offs and evaluation criteria
Advocates argue that such measures would help address concerns of imbalance while strengthening long-term institutional trust.
Impact on Education and Recruitment Climate in Jammu and Kashmir
The ongoing controversy has implications beyond the examination itself. Judicial recruitment credibility directly affects confidence in state institutions and influences career decisions among law graduates. If uncertainty persists, aspirants may increasingly turn to national-level examinations or opportunities outside the region. This shift could affect local legal education ecosystems, including coaching institutes and law colleges, across both Jammu and Kashmir.