The UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2026 has come under legal scrutiny after the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) issued notice to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in a case challenging eight questions from the exam. The case could matter to several aspirants as the disputed questions are claimed to have an impact of more than 16 marks, including negative marking.The case, filed by Sachin Tiwari and others, was heard on Monday, August 17, 2026. Advocate Shantanu Jugtawat, an alumnus of NLIU Bhopal, appeared for the applicants and informed the tribunal about their objections to the provisional answer key.
Which UPSC Prelims questions are under challenge?
The applicants appeared for the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2026 conducted by UPSC. After the exam, the Commission released its provisional answer key on May 27 and invited candidates to submit objections.According to the applicants, they compared the provisional answers with government records, laws, official publications and other reliable sources. They have raised objections to eight questions in General Studies Paper-I, Set A.The questions under challenge are 7, 11, 45, 60, 62, 82, 86 and 96.The candidates claim that some of these questions contain factual errors, while some answers marked by UPSC are inconsistent with authoritative sources. They have also argued that certain questions do not have a clearly correct option among those provided.
More than 16 marks could be affected
One of the key arguments before the tribunal is the possible impact of the disputed questions on candidates’ scores.The applicants estimate that the eight questions, along with the effect of negative marking, could affect more than 16 marks.That could be important in a competitive examination such as UPSC Prelims, where the difference of a few marks can decide whether a candidate moves on to the Civil Services Main Examination.The applicants have therefore argued that the final treatment of these questions could directly affect their chances of qualifying for the next stage.
Why did candidates approach CAT?
The applicants had already submitted their objections to the provisional answer key. However, they say they did not receive a satisfactory response from UPSC.With the final answer key expected to determine the candidates’ results, they approached the CAT seeking directions to the Commission to properly consider their objections and correct the provisional answer key wherever required.The case has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Advocate argues exam must remain fair
During the hearing, advocate Shantanu Jugtawat argued that an examination used to decide eligibility for public employment must meet basic standards of fairness.He submitted that if a significant number of questions in such an examination are factually incorrect, wrong answers are treated as correct, and the resulting marks form a substantial part of the qualifying threshold, the fairness of the examination could be affected.The applicants have argued that such a situation could also raise concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.These are the applicants’ arguments before the tribunal and have not yet been finally decided by the CAT.
Who is representing the petitioners?
Advocate Shantanu Jugtawat is representing the applicants in the matter. He is an alumnus of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and has been practising before the Supreme Court for around 16 years.According to the information provided in the case, he has appeared in several significant matters, including the Sabarimala case and the Hathras case.
What happens next?
The CAT has issued notice to UPSC and directed the Commission to file its reply in the matter.The case is titled Sachin Tiwari and Others versus Union Public Service Commission and has been registered as OA No. 3110/2026.The next hearing is scheduled for October 8, 2026.For now, the tribunal has not ruled that the disputed questions or UPSC’s provisional answer key are incorrect. The Commission will first get an opportunity to respond to the applicants’ claims, after which the CAT will consider the matter further.
