Government services, exams, spending, complaints — with a public audit trail, so corruption has nowhere to hide. Add your name.
Just 3 quick things.
Why we ask: a real mobile number ties each signature to one accountable person and stops the same person signing twice — it's what gives this register credibility if it's ever presented as evidence of public support. Your number is never published.
Thank you. Your entry is recorded and counted.
Numbers are our strength. Send this to 3 people you trust.
One clear demand: every public process — exams, services, budgets, complaints — must keep a public audit trail that any citizen can check. Content can stay secret; the process cannot. That's how corruption loses its hiding place.
Yes. We collect your name, number, role and city. Your number is never shown publicly and never sold — it's only for verification and (if you opt in) contact. You can ask us to delete your entry any time.
Yes — and you should. The full working draft is open for anyone to read and question.
Courts cannot order "end corruption" — that gets a petition dismissed. Courts can order specific machinery: logs, audits, disclosure, inquiry. Once the principle "public process needs a public audit trail" is won for exams, we take it to the next department, and the next. That is how systems actually change.
Equality and fair evaluation (Articles 14 & 21) · freedom of speech and the right to know (Article 19(1)(a)) · peaceful assembly (Article 19(1)(b)) · protection of life and bodily integrity (Article 21).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______ OF 2026
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32)
Petitioners: [Named citizens — to be finalised] v. Respondents: Union of India (Ministry of Education); National Testing Agency; Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs); Commissioner of Police, Delhi; Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
The petition proceeds on a clear distinction: the secrecy of content (question papers, cryptographic keys) protects the examination; the secrecy of process (who handled what, when, with what verification) protects only those who subvert it. Opacity of process is not a facet of national security but its opposite. Despite the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and the recommendations of the High-Level Committee after NEET-UG 2024, no binding framework requires tamper-evident logging, independent audit, or public disclosure of audit outcomes — and the 2026 leak demonstrates that criminalisation without transparency has failed.
(a) Mandatory end-to-end chain-of-custody with tamper-evident logging for every national public examination;
(b) An independent Examination Integrity Audit Authority publishing audit outcomes after each exam — expressly excluding question material and security-sensitive particulars;
(c) Time-bound public disclosure of process metadata, subject to the exclusions in (b);
(d) Declaration that blanket prohibitory orders at Jantar Mantar violate Arts. 19(1)(a)–(b); a regulated-permission regime per MKSS;
(e) Court-monitored inquiry into the use of force on protesters; accountability and compensation for the injured;
(f) Publication of all internet-suspension orders and review decisions per Anuradha Bhasin;
(g) Such further orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit.