The decision has triggered strong opposition from law students, many of whom have questioned the basis of the move and demanded greater transparency from the university administration.

According to the official order issued by the university, the examination conducted between May 7 and May 28 has been declared invalid due to administrative reasons. The cancellation comes months after concerns were raised over the security of examination-related data and the possibility of question papers being accessed before the scheduled tests.

Soon after the revised examination schedule was announced, students from the Department of Law submitted representations objecting to the re-examination process. They argued that the university should first make public the findings of the fact-finding committee whose report reportedly formed the basis for the cancellation decision.

Students have demanded that the administration release the investigation report, reconsider the re-examination order and ensure strict action against those responsible for the alleged leak rather than penalising all candidates by forcing them to appear again.

University officials, including Registrar Prof. Ashwini Dixit, met protesting students and attempted to explain the circumstances behind the decision.

The controversy has also raised questions about the pace of administrative action.

A five-member fact-finding committee constituted to investigate the matter reportedly submitted its findings to the university on June 6. However, no immediate decision followed, and the report remained under review for more than a month.

The examination cancellation order was issued only recently, prompting criticism from students who have questioned why the administration waited for weeks before acting on the committee's recommendations.

The investigation reportedly concluded that the university's Samarth portal had not been hacked. Instead, access to confidential examination materials was allegedly obtained through authorised login credentials. The committee is understood to have found evidence suggesting that question papers and related academic data were leaked using valid usernames and passwords rather than through an external cyberattack.

The findings have heightened concerns about internal security practices and access controls within the examination system.

Sources familiar with the matter said the committee recommended a police investigation to determine how sensitive information was accessed and distributed. The university has subsequently initiated an internal departmental inquiry to examine administrative accountability.

The inquiry committee includes senior academic and administrative officials such as Prof. S.C. Shrivastava, Chief Proctor Prof. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Prof. Khemchand Dewangan, OSD Prof. Bharti Ahirwar and Assistant Registrar (Examinations) T.P. Singh.

The paper leak controversy has already resulted in administrative changes within the university's law department.

Earlier, the university removed the then Head of Department and Dean of the Faculty of Law, Prof. Sudhanshu Ranjan Mohapatra, from his position following questions raised over examination management and departmental oversight. Prof. Praveen Mishra from the Department of History was subsequently assigned additional responsibility as the new Dean and Head of the Law Department.

The issue has attracted attention beyond the campus.

Students previously escalated their complaints to higher authorities, including the Visitor of the university and constitutional offices, seeking intervention in the matter. The incident has also intensified debate around examination security and digital governance within higher educational institutions.

For now, the university administration appears determined to proceed with the re-examination process. However, student groups continue to demand access to the fact-finding report and greater clarity regarding the actions taken against those allegedly involved in the leak.

With fresh examinations now scheduled to begin on July 27, attention remains focused on whether the administration can restore confidence in the examination system while addressing concerns about accountability and transparency.