Delhi High Court
Aditya Singh (Minor) vs Consortium Of National Law … on 20 December, 2024
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~151
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20th December, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 17138/2024
ADITYA SINGH (MINOR) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr. Arjeet Gaur,
Mr. Barinda Batra, Mr. Atul Kanti Tripathi,
Mr. Suryansh Jamwal and Mr. Sachin Sharma,
Advocates.
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITIES .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Srikumar, Mr. A. K. Trivedi,
Mr. Ram Shankar, Mr. Yash Jagra, Mr. Shubhansh
Thakur and Ms. Shreya Sethi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J.
CM APPL. 72767/2024
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 17138/2024 and CM APPL. 72765-66/2024
3. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to the final
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 1 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
answer key dated 07.12.2024 declared by the Respondent for Common
Law Admission Test-2025 (‘CLAT-2025’) for admission to five year
LLB courses conducted by National Law Universities (‘NLUs’) in the
2025-26 session with a direction to the Respondent inter alia to constitute an
expert committee for consideration and evaluation of the objections
filed by the Petitioner on 03.12.2024 and 09.12.2024. Petitioner also
seeks mandamus to the Respondent to declare the correct answers
with respect to Question Nos.14, 37, 67, 68 and 100 of Question Paper
Set-A.
4. Factual matrix to the extent necessary is that in response to admission
notification for CLAT-2025 issued by the Respondent, Petitioner submitted
online application seeking admission to five year Integrated Law
Programmes conducted by NLUs. Admit card was issued to the Petitioner
for appearing in the entrance examination scheduled on 01.12.2024.
Petitioner appeared in the examination and was assigned Set ‘A’ out of the
four sets of question papers i.e. Sets A, B, C and D.
5. On 02.12.2024, Respondent released the provisional answer key and
invited objections from candidates on or before 03.12.2024. Petitioner avers
that finding errors in the provisional answer key, he submitted detailed
objections on 03.12.2024 via the online portal wherein he raised objections
to Question Nos.14, 37, 67, 68, 89, 99, 100 and 102. Objections of the
Petitioner with respect to Question Nos.89, 99 and 102 were sustained and
accordingly either the question was deleted or the answer was modified by
publishing the final answer key on 07.12.2024.
6. Petitioner states that simultaneous to the release of final answer
key dated 07.12.2024, Respondent issued a notification on the same
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 2 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
day intimating constitution of a Grievance Redressal Committee for
resolving any grievances that candidates may have with respect to
CLAT-2025. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation on
09.12.2024 highlighting his grievances and pointing out discrepancies in the
questions and the evaluation process as also errors in the final answer
key. However, even before the grievances could be looked into,
Respondent notified on 09.12.2024 that registration for counselling would
take place between 09.12.2024 and 20.12.2024 and First round of
counselling shall commence on 26.12.2024, on publication of the First
Allotment list.
7. Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by rejection of his
objections qua 5 questions. With a score of 87 marks, Petitioner’s rank is
898 and pithily put, his case before the Court is that as per the scheme of
examination, 0.25 marks were deducted for every wrong answer and 01
(one) mark was awarded for every correct answer and if the objections are
accepted and errors corrected, Petitioner would get additional 5 marks and
his ranking in the merit list will go up. It is conceded by the Petitioner that
he will get admission in one of the NLUs with his present ranking, but he
aspires to better his rank so as to get admission in the top 3 NLUs of the
country and with this goal seeks rectification of the answer key to the extent
of his objections.
8. Before moving forward, it would be useful to refer to the
05 questions against which objections have been preferred by the
Petitioner along with the given options as well as the answer keys
and the options exercised by the Petitioner. Relevant questions are as
follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 3 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
“QUESTION NO. 14
I. Answer as per provisional key:- D
II. Answer as per Final Answer Key:-D (Sellers of Stolen Hardware)
III. Answer of the Petitioner-: C (Auctioneers of cheap Bags)
QUESTION NO. 37Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 4 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
I. Answer as per provisional key -: D
II. Answer as per Final Answer Key-: D
III. Answer of the Petitioner-: CQUESTION NO. 67
I. Answer as per provisional key -: B
II. Answer as per Final Answer Key-: B (A voidable agreement)
III. Answer of the Petitioner-: C (A void agreement)Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 5 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
QUESTION NO. 68I. Answer as per provisional key -: C
II. Answer as per Final Answer Key-: C (An agreement to pay 10 lakhs on getting a
government job)
III. Answer of the Petitioner-; D (A contract with a minor who understands the terms)QUESTION NO. 100
I. Answer as per provisional key – B
II. Answer as per Final Key -: D (Data inadequate)
III. Answer of the Petitioner-: B.”
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Question No. 14 was
based on a comprehension passage from a work of fiction of a renowned
author and the candidate was required to choose which of the trade or
occupation mentioned in the 4 given options was not represented in the
pathway running through the town hall park and option ‘C’ being
‘Auctioneers of cheap Bags’, chosen by the Petitioner was the only trade
which was not represented in the pathway, which is evident from a plain
reading of the passage. Respondent argued that an unlawful or illegal
activity can never be trade/occupation and thus option ‘D’ i.e. ‘sellers ofSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 6 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
stolen hardware’ in the answer key was the right answer, but this argument
is untenable and overlooks the fact that Question No. 14 was a part of
Questions Nos. 1 to 24 under the English Language section, wherein only
the language skill of the candidate was under test and candidate was not
required to delve into whether the trades mentioned in the passage were
lawful. No legal reasoning was required to attempt the comprehension under
this section of the question paper.
10. It was further argued that under Question No. 37, Petitioner correctly
chose option ‘C’ i.e. ‘will come into force after census’ based on the given
passage, wherein it was stated that the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam Act,
2023 would come into force after the implementation of two long-term
exercises of census and delimitation. In light of Option ‘C’ referring to one
of the pre-conditions of the Act coming into force, Option ‘D’ which was
‘none of the above’, could not be the correct answer and thus the final
answer key was incorrect.
11. Learned counsel contended that Petitioner chose the correct option
‘C’ for Question No. 67 i.e. ‘a void agreement’, since the question referred
to an agreement made by an adult involving a minor child, where the
signatory is a minor child himself and an agreement executed and signed by
a minor is a void agreement as per Sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Privy
Council in the leading case of Mohori Bibee and Another v. Dhurmodas
Ghose, 1903 SCC OnLine PC 4, wherein it was held that an agreement with
a minor is void ab initio. Reliance was also placed on a recent judgment of
the Supreme Court in Krishnaveni v. M.A. Shagul Hameed and Another,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1903, wherein the Supreme Court rejected theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 7 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
contention of the appellant that a contract in favour of a minor is enforceable
and is not void and held that in view of the decision in Mathai Mathai v.
Joseph Mary Alias Marykkutty Joseph and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 622,
judgments in A.T. Raghava Chariar v. O.M. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar,
1916 SCC OnLine Mad 83 and Thakar Das etc. v. Mst. Putli, 1924 SCC
OnLine Lah 117, are no longer good law and thus reliance on the aforesaid
decisions in the impugned judgment by the learned Judge to hold that the
contract in favour of the minor is enforceable, was misconceived. In this
light, Option ‘B’ i.e. ‘a voidable contract’ is the incorrect answer.
12. Question No. 68 is ‘which of the scenarios given in the 04 options
would most likely result in a void agreement’ and learned counsel for the
Petitioner attempted to justify that option ‘D’ i.e. ‘A contract with a minor
who understands the terms’, is the correct answer. It was argued that a
contract with a minor is always void even if the minor understands the
terms, but an ‘An agreement to pay Rs.10 lakhs on getting a government
job’, is not void. The error in the answer key has occurred on an erroneous
interpretation and understanding of option ‘C’ to mean an agreement to pay
illegal gratification to procure a Government job, but simply read, reference
is to an agreement to re-pay a loan after one secures a job and has the means
to pay.
13. With respect to Question No.100, it was argued that the question was
based on a seating arrangement of persons sitting in a circle and from the
question itself, positions of both Ram and Rakesh were clear and applying
the given data, the correct option was ‘Sohan’, which was not even the given
option and thus the question ought to be excluded. Option ‘D’ i.e. ‘Data
inadequate’, in the answer key is not the correct answer as the question had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 8 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
complete data to ascertain the position of Rakesh. It was also pointed out
that another Question No. 85 in the Master Booklet, which was Question
No. 97 in Set ‘A’, was based on the same passage as Question No.100 in Set
‘A’ and was withdrawn on the recommendation of the Expert Committee.
14. Learned counsel strenuously argued that Petitioner has been gravely
prejudiced by the errors in the final answer key, as he has lost 01 mark each
for every correct answer and 0.25 marks have been deducted treating the
correct answers as wrong and if the errors are rectified, Petitioner is likely to
achieve a higher score of 93.25, which will improve his existing rank. It was
brought forth that albeit the scope of interference in judicial review in
matters of correctness of answer keys in an examination process is limited,
but it is not wholly insulated. The Supreme Court and this Court have time
and again held that ordinarily, the answer key should be assumed to be
correct unless it is proved to be wrong, not by an inferential process or
reasoning, but clearly demonstrated to be wrong such that no prudent person
well-versed in the concerned subject would regard the answer as the correct
option. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kanpur
University, Through Vice-Chancellor and Others v. Samir Gupta and
Others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 and Rishal and Others v. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 81, and emphasising that
the answer key with respect to the questions against which objections have
been filed by the Petitioner is palpably and demonstrably incorrect,
Petitioner seeks intervention of this Court, exercising equity jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to set right, the wrong.
15. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, per contra, submitted that the writ petition deserves to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 9 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
dismissed for multi-fold reasons. Preliminary objection is raised to the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition on the
ground that Respondent is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960 with a permanent Secretariat in Bengaluru in
Karnataka. Members of the society include various NLUs, however, no
NLU located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is a member of
the Respondent consortium. It was argued that the Respondent society is
based outside Delhi and all its members are also beyond the territorial
boundaries of this Court. Petitioner appeared in CLAT-2025 for the purpose
of seeking admission to several Colleges/Universities that are located
outside Delhi and seen from the point of forum conveniens also, this Court
lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the examination
result and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
16. Without prejudice, it is submitted that Petitioner has no case on merits
and the objections to the 05 questions preferred by him have no basis in law
and merit rejection. Respondent follows a rigorous process of holding the
examination as also for evaluating the answers. To ensure objectivity and
transparency, after the examination is conducted, Respondent releases a
provisional answer key as per its pre-notified schedule of events and invites
objections from candidates for the answers given in the said key which in
the present case was done vide Notification dated 02.12.2024. Candidates
were permitted to file their objections until 04:00 PM on 03.12.2024. This is
to rule out the possibility of errors before the merit list is prepared.
17. It was submitted that Petitioner availed the benefit of this Notification
and filed his objections on Respondent’s website to a total of 08 questions
including the questions, which are the subject matter of this writ petition,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 10 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
giving his own justifications for the answers, which he felt were more
appropriate. Similarly, a total of 5250 objections in all were received
from different candidates. To be fair to the candidates, Respondent
constituted a multi-disciplinary Expert Committee comprising of
distinguished professionals with expertise in different sections of the
question paper i.e. ‘Expert Committee’ to review the provisional answer key
and the objections of the candidates. The Expert Committee was chaired by
a former Vice Chancellor of National University of Juridical Sciences, West
Bengal and Karnataka State Law University and included 08 other experts
from varied fields and was consciously not restricted to people with legal
background.
18. Mr. Sethi explained that the Expert Committee analysed all objections
received from the candidates threadbare. As a matter of statistics, objections
were received for 93 questions out of 120 and in most cases, the number of
objecting candidates was very minor, often just one. Nonetheless, each
objection was given a careful and independent consideration by the experts
and decision was taken after extensive deliberations. Different sections of
paper and of the provisional answer key were referred to different sub-
groups of the Expert Committee based on individual expertise. After
reviewing the objections, the Expert Committee in its meeting dated
05.12.2024 recommended changes in two answers of the provisional answer
key and withdrawal of 05 questions. The recommendation was placed before
an Oversight Committee as a second tier check to ensure objectivity and
robustness in the process and the Committee was chaired by a former Chief
Justice of one of the High Courts and included Vice Chancellors of different
prestigious Universities.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 11 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
19. The Oversight Committee after its independent and separate
deliberation suggested withdrawal of 04 questions in Set ‘A’ i.e. 89, 97, 99
and 102 and also recommended modification of provisional answers to 03
questions in Set ‘A’ viz. 85, 87 and 100. Withdrawal of questions was
suggested where it was found that none of the suggested answer was
appropriate. Final recommendation of the Oversight Committee was then
referred to and approved unanimously by the Executive Committee and
General Body comprising of all member Vice Chancellors of the consortium
of the Respondent. It is thus evident that Respondent has adopted a
rigorous internal process before finalising and publishing the final answer
key on 07.12.2024 with ample opportunity to all candidates to raise their
objections.
20. In light of this, Mr. Sethi urged this Court not to interfere in the
examination process, as a robust internal check mechanism was in place and
the final result has been published with all due care and deliberation and on
the recommendation of 2 Expert Committees comprising of experts and
luminaries in the field and this is amply demonstrated by the very fact that
objections of the Petitioner with respect to Question Nos. 89, 99 and 102
were upheld and they were either deleted or answers were modified in the
final answer key published on 07.12.2024. The Committees did not find any
demonstrable error in Question Nos. 14, 37, 67, 68 and 100 and it is not for
this Court to sit over the judgment of the Expert Committees and/or analyse
the questions as an expert body. It is a settled law that there can be no
judicial review of a decision albeit the decision making process is open to
judicial review. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Supreme Court has held that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 12 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
mathematical precision is not always possible in answers in competitive
examinations and Court must consider the internal check and balances put in
place by the examination authorities before interfering in the process.
21. Mr. Sethi submitted that a finality must be given to an examination
process otherwise the process would be unending and this is not in public
interest. The time schedule within which an examination process must be
concluded is also of essence and moreover, revaluation of answer scripts is
never a matter of right and in this context, relied on the judgment of this
Court in Anushka Sharma (Minor) v. Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE) and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2404. Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate that the view of the Expert Committee/Oversight
Committee is not even a possible or plausible view and the scope of judicial
review cannot extend to substituting the views of the Court for that of an
examiner and relied on the judgment of this Court in Freya Kothari v.
Union of India & Ors, W.P. (C) 13668/2022, decided on 22.09.2022. For
the proposition that the Courts must adopt a hands-off approach in
examination and academic matter, Mr. Sethi relied on the judgments of this
Court in Mahipal Singh v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine
Del 4975; and Shivangi Lal through her Guardian/Father Mr. Apurb Lal
v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9118.
Mr. Sethi also placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Ran Vijay Singh (supra), more particularly, on the observations that
sympathy and compassion does not play any role in matter of directing or
not directing revaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the
examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire
examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 13 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having
been caused to them by an erroneous answer or an erroneous question. The
Supreme Court also observed that it was completely beyond the jurisdiction
of the Court to take upon himself the exercise to actually ascertain the
correctness of the key answers to the questions involved.
22. On merits, Mr. Sethi argued that option ‘C’ chosen by the Petitioner
in response to Question No. 14 in Set ‘A’, is an incorrect option and option
‘D’ in the answer key is the correct answer. Candidates were required to
answer which of the given options was not ‘trade or occupation’ represented
in the pathway and the expression ‘trade or occupation’ cannot include seller
of a stolen hardware, as trading in stolen goods is an unlawful activity.
Anything that is illegal or unlawful cannot be termed as a trade as one
cannot argue that gambling is a trade. Relying on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala and
Another, 1957 SCR 874, it was argued that the terms ‘trade’ and
‘occupation’ cannot be read in their widest amplitude as meaning any
activity which is undertaken or carried on with a view to earn profit or is
commercial and must be lawful. Candidates were required to answer the
questions by applying legal reasoning and not by following a method of
elimination. Selling stolen goods is an unlawful activity and cannot be a
trade/occupation and thus was the correct option.
23. In the context of Question No. 37, it was argued that the 2023 Act was
linked to implementation of two long term exercises relating to census and
delimitation and none of the options A, B and C mentioned both the pre-
conditions i.e. census and delimitation and therefore the correct option was
‘D’ i.e. none of the above. Petitioner was not correct in choosing option ‘C’,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 14 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
which provided only one condition i.e. census. Insofar as Question No. 67 is
concerned, Mr. Sethi contended that an agreement by an adult involving a
minor child where signatory is the minor child himself is not void per se but
is voidable and therefore, option ‘C’ i.e. a void agreement, chosen by the
Petitioner is not the correct answer. Relying on the judgment of the Privy
Council in Sri Kakulam Subrahmanyam and Another v. Kurra Subba Rao,
1948 SCC OnLine PC 15, it was urged that a contract with a minor is
voidable and when entered into for necessity and/or benefit of the minor, can
be enforced at his instance. Reference is made to Section 68 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 to support this plea and illustratively, it is submitted that
if a person A supplies to a minor B, certain necessities such as an
accommodation to stay in a property, A is entitled to be reimbursed from
B’s property. It was also argued that once any question challenged before a
Court in an examination process triggers a debate and falls in shades of grey
instead of begging a black and white answer such as two plus two is four,
requiring an exercise of inference or interpretation, Court must give way to
the opinion of the Expert Committee and adopt a hands-off approach.
24. On Question No. 68, the argument of the Respondent was that the
candidate was required to choose a most likely option of a demonstrably
void agreement and since a contract with a minor is not a void contract per
se, option ‘D’ exercised by the Petitioner was the incorrect answer and
option ‘C’ as per the final answer key was the correct answer inasmuch as
an agreement to pay Rs.10 lakhs on getting a government job is akin to
offering illegal gratification to procure a job and being opposed to public
policy, will always be a void agreement. On Question No. 100, Mr. Sethi
argued that after the objection was received albeit Expert Committee had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 15 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
suggested withdrawal of the question but the Oversight Committee after due
deliberation disagreed, as the exact position of Rakesh was not known and
therefore, the data was inadequate. In this light, option ‘D’, i.e., ‘Data
inadequate’ was the correct answer and the recommendation of the
Oversight Committee ought to be substituted in judicial review.
25. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Senior Counsel
for the Respondent.
26. Insofar as objection of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same
has no merit. Indisputably, Petitioner has attempted the online examination
within the territorial boundaries of this Court and the issues agitated before
this Court concern alleged errors in the answer key pertaining to the said
examination. Therefore, part of cause of action, even though miniscule has
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and merely because the
permanent secretariat of the Respondent is located at Bengaluru in
Karnataka, it cannot be argued that this Court has no jurisdiction. Article
226(2) of the Constitution of India provides that power conferred on the
High Court under Article 226(1) to issue writs to any authority or
person may be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises, notwithstanding the seat of such authority not being within those
territories.
27. Before embarking on the journey to examine the present case, it is
imperative to delineate the ambit and scope of interference by this Court in
matters relating to academics, particularly examinations, while exercising
power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is
beyond cavil that Courts do not have the expertise to evaluate or assess
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 16 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
answers to questions in the examinations and the scope of commenting on
independent assessments, analysis and conclusions of experts, who have
evaluated the answers to the questions, is even more limited and
circumscribed. Supreme Court has time and again observed that
Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in matters where
challenges are laid to the correctness of the answer keys concerning
competitive examinations and should be reluctant to interfere. In Ran Vijay
Singh (supra), the Supreme Court, after referring to several judicial
precedents, summarised the legal position as under:
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only
propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits
the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a
matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit
it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not
permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from
prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it
is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of
reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or
exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer
sheets of a candidate–it has no expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and
proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate.”
28. In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman
and Another v. Rahul Singh and Another, (2018) 7 SCC 254, the Supreme
Court was again examining the extent and power of the Court to interfere in
academic matters. Reliance was placed on the earlier decisions of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 17 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
Supreme Court in Kanpur University (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh (supra).
Reference was made to paragraphs 30 and 32 in the case of Ran Vijay Singh
(supra) to demonstrate and highlight why Constitutional Courts must
exercise judicial restraint. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment in Rahul
Singh (supra) are as follows:
“11. We may also refer to the following observations in paras 31 and 32
which show why the constitutional courts must exercise restraint in such
matters: (Ran Vijay Singh case [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2
SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC p. 369)
“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not
play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation
of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire
examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because
some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some
injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might
suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is
not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse
— exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court,
some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the
courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination
authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny
and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes
prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty.
While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in
preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the
examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully
conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some
lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks
and balances put in place by the examination authorities before
interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have
successfully participated in the examination and the examination
authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the
consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the
result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from
the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering
about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination–
whether they have passed or not; whether their result will beSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 18 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get
admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get
recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in
confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of
all this is that public interest suffers.”
12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only
demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring
mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning
is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional courts
must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to
entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur
University case [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309],
the Court recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no
marks be assigned to such questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before publishing the
first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers
moderated by two Expert Committees. Thereafter, objections were invited
and a 26-member Committee was constituted to verify the objections and
after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted
and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these
Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the
examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in
academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key
answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into
the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by
both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is
better or more correct.”
29. In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of
Rajasthan and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 309, the Supreme Court restated as
follows:
“16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to
the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and
the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert
committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of
Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416]. Reliance was placed by theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 19 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [Richal v.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81 : (2018) 2 SCC
(L&S) 456] . In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection
process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not
enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself.
Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute
in this case.”
30. In State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others,
(2011) 8 SCC 737, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“42. Undoubtedly, the court lacks expertise especially in disputes
relating to policies of pure academic educational matters. Therefore,
generally it should abide by the opinion of the expert body. The
Constitution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda
Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] (AIR p. 496, para 13) held that “normally the
courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the
experts”. It would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave such
decisions to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face
than the courts generally can be. This view has consistently been
reiterated by this Court in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal
[(1990) 2 SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 395 : (1990) 13 ATC 732 : AIR
1990 SC 1402] , Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik
Samity [(2010) 3 SCC 732 : AIR 2010 SC 1285] , Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr.
H.L. Ramesh [(2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640] and State of
H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh [(2011) 6 SCC
597] .”
31. In National Board of Examination v. Association of MD Physicians,
LPA 225/2021, decided on 05.08.2022, Division Bench of this Court, after
discussing the judgments in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), Kanpur University
(supra) and Rahul Singh (supra), has in paragraphs 17 and 18 stated as
under:
“17. The foregoing cases cement the finding that Judges are not and
cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be
supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction. It needs to be
demonstrated by a candidate that the key answers are patently wrong on
the face of it, and if there is any exercise conducted by the Court wherein
the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken
into consideration, that will inevitably amount to unwarranted interferenceSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 20 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
on the part of the Court. When there are conflicting views, it is incumbent
upon the Court to bow down to the opinion of the experts which, in this
case, was the Expert Committee constituted by the NBE.
18. The submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel hold weight
inasmuch as the Court cannot step into the shoes of the examiner and
render an opinion contrary to that of the Expert Committee. If the error in
the question is manifest and palpable, and does not require any elaborate
argument, then the Writ court may choose to intervene. However, where
the errors do not show their heads without a detailed and elaborate probe
into the opinions of experts, the Court must stay its hands. It would not be
prudent for a Court to conduct itself like an expert in a subject alien to it
when an entire body of experts has arrived at a contradictory stand. It is
also not for the Courts to interfere in such matters, except in absolutely
rare and exceptional cases, especially in view of the fact that the instant
examination pertains to the practice of medicine – a field that requires the
exercise of utmost care and caution.
(emphasis supplied by us)”
32. The moot question that arises for consideration is whether in exercise
of power of judicial review, this Court can examine the correctness of the
answer key under challenge with circumspection or there is an absolute
proscription in entering in this domain. From the conspectus of the
aforementioned judgments, the takeaway is that there is no absolute
proscription against a Court examining a challenge to the answer key in an
examination process, even if there is an expert opinion before the Court.
Most certainly Courts must exercise restraint in interfering in academic
matters, including those pertaining to examinations. The Supreme Court in
Rahul Singh (supra) cautioned that the Constitutional Courts must exercise
great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea
challenging the correctness of the key answers and only where there is a
glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or
reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong and the candidate
is able to discharge the onus that the answer key is demonstrably incorrect,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 21 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
the Court should step in. Therefore, the law does not commend a total
‘hands off’ approach and in exceptional cases where questions are found to
be demonstrably wrong, the resultant injustice to a candidate must be
redressed and undone.
33. I may also allude at this stage to an important observation of the
Division Bench of this Court in Manoj Saklani v. Union of India and
Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7726, where the Court while dealing with
questions pertaining to a limited departmental competitive examination,
exercised the power of judicial review and held that one question was
demonstrably wrong by the book and common knowledge of the Court by
experience in the field. The Court made a very significant observation that
where the answer key is demonstrably wrong such that no person well-
versed in the subject would regard it as correct and there is no requirement
to conduct an exercise to examine the same by referring to text books etc.,
the Court in its judicial conscious cannot turn a blind eye to the case of the
Petitioner and affix a stamp of approval on something that is visibly and
patently incorrect. Recently, another Division Bench of this Court in Staff
Selection Commission and Another v. Shubham Pal and Others, 2024
SCC OnLine Del 7144, upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge of
this Court where the answer key of one question in the examination was held
to be palpably wrong.
34. Contentions of the parties need to be examined in light of the above
guiding principles, with a cautious caveat that the scope of intervention is
limited. Be it first noted that the contents of the question paper were divided
into five sections viz. English Language; Current Affairs including
General Knowledge; Legal Reasoning; Logical Reasoning; and Quantitative
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 22 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
Techniques. Question No. 14 of Set ‘A’ (Question 5 of Master Booklet) was
part of English Language test and the options were to be exercised based on
a comprehension passage extracted from a fiction “An Astrologer’s Day” by
R.K. Narayan. This Section was to test the knowledge of the candidate in
English language and not legal reasoning, which was a separate section. It
needs no reiteration that while attempting a comprehension passage in a
language test, a candidate is not required to examine the terms or
expressions used in the sentences on the touchstone of a legal reasoning,
applying statutory provisions or articles of Constitution of India and/or
judicial precedents. Option ‘D’ which is ‘sellers of stolen hardware’, is
sought to be justified by Mr. Sethi on the ground that sale of stolen goods is
an unlawful activity and cannot be termed as trade as understood in Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or interpreted in judicial precedents and
therefore while choosing any option pertaining to trade and occupation, the
candidate was first required to examine the legal nuance of the expression
trade. I am afraid I cannot accept this argument in the context of attempting
a comprehension passage based on a fictional work. The question as it reads
has four options and, save and except, option ‘C’ which pertains to auction
of cheap bags, all other trades/occupations mentioned in the 03 options i.e.
magicians, medicine sellers and sellers of stolen hardware are represented in
the pathway running through the townhall park and Petitioner correctly
chose option ‘C’. By any stretch of imagination, on a plain reading of
relevant part of the passage i.e. ‘A variety of trades and occupations was
represented all along its way: medicine sellers, sellers of stolen hardware
and junk, magicians, and, above all, an auctioneer of cheap cloth, who
created enough din all day to attract the whole town’, the option exercised
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 23 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
by the Petitioner cannot be held to be incorrect. Examination of this question
requires no inferential process or reasoning as the answer key is
demonstrably and apparently wrong. I may also note that against this
question, there were 891 objections and the Expert Committee had
recommended updation of answer key for option ‘C’ but the Oversight
Committee overruled the decision of the Expert Committee by simply
stating that on analysis of the term ‘not a trade or occupation’, the
Committee decides to retain the option given by the original author of the
question. The large number of objections to the question and the view of the
Expert Committee coupled with no justification by the Oversight Committee
to disagree, only fortifies the stand of the Petitioner that option ‘C’ was the
correct answer and no legal reasoning can be imported while attempting a
comprehension passage.
35. Insofar as Question No. 37 is concerned, from the passage in question
it is clear that implementation of Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam Act, 2023
was linked to implementation of two long term exercises of census and
delimitation and therefore, none of the options ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ were the
correct options and the correct answer was option ‘D’ i.e. ‘None of the
Above’, while Petitioner chose option ‘C’. The Expert Committee concluded
that both the conditions were required to be fulfilled for the Act to come into
force and this plausible view which is palpably clear from a plain reading of
the passage warrants no interference.
36. Question No. 67 reads as ‘An agreement made by an adult but
involving a minor child where the signatory is a minor child himself, this
agreement would be’. Petitioner has chosen option ‘C’ i.e. ‘the agreement is
void’ while as per the answer key, correct answer is option ‘B’ i.e. ‘the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 24 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
agreement is voidable’. Respective parties had made extensive arguments on
the issue of void agreements and voidable/void contracts and relied on
judgments to support their respective pleas. Clearly, examination of this
question and the answer key requires an inferential process or reasoning as
well as appreciation of various provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as also an academic discussion based on
text books/literature etc. as to when the agreements are enforceable in law
and/or can be termed as void, an area in which interference by the Court is
proscribed and is best left to the Expert Committees. The Expert Committee
has concluded that the answer key was correct and agreed with the
justification of the paper setter. In view of the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and Rahul Singh (supra), this Court
finds no reason for judicial intervention in the answer key. The Court can
step in only where the error in the question is manifest and palpable and
does not require an elaborate argument, however, where the question
requires a detailed probe into the opinion of the Experts, the Court must stay
its hands. No infirmity is found with the answer key to Question No. 67.
37. In Question No. 68, the candidate was required to choose an option
amongst the given scenarios which would most likely result in a void
agreement. While the Petitioner chose option ‘D’ i.e. a contract with a
minor who understands the term, as per the answer key the correct option
was ‘C’ i.e. an agreement to pay Rs.10 lakhs on getting a government job.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that a contract with a minor is
a void contract and therefore, option ‘D’ was the closest option and correct
answer to the question. Option ‘C’ in the answer key is an incorrect answer,
as an agreement to pay Rs.10 lakhs on getting a government job is a fair deal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 25 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
between a person who takes a loan and agrees to repay the same after he
secures the job and has the means to repay and cannot be a void agreement.
Respondent, per contra, contended that option ‘C’ envisages an agreement
whereby a person offers bribe/illegal gratification to secure a government
job and thus being oppose to public policy, the agreement is void while a
contract with the minor is a voidable contract and option ‘D’ exercised by
the Petitioner is an incorrect answer. The Expert Committee has opined that
option ‘C’ is the correct answer. Petitioner calls upon this Court to first
interpret the meaning and connotation of option ‘C’ and read the option as
an agreement to repay a loan on securing a job and thereafter hold that
option ‘C’ is the incorrect answer. As per the settled law, it is beyond the
domain of this Court to interpret an option in a question paper and read it in
a manner tailormade to a candidate’s requirement. This is purely the domain
and prerogative of the question paper setter, the body evaluating the answer
sheets and finally, the Expert Committee, if any. The Expert Committee and
the Oversight Committee have unanimously held the answer key to be
correct. The very fact that an interpretation to an option is called for and the
correctness of the answer requires extensive debate places this question into
a category of cases where there is no room for interference by the Court. In
Kanpur University (supra), the Supreme Court held that correctness of the
answer key should be presumed unless it is proved to be demonstrably
wrong and not by an inferential process of reasoning. No interference is
warranted in Question No. 68.
38. Coming to Question No. 100, this Court finds merit in the contention
of the Petitioner that the correct answer would be Sohan but this was not
amongst the 04 options in the question paper. The question was required to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 26 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
be answered basis a seating arrangement where “Ram, Shyam, Rohit, Mohit,
Rohan, Sohan, Mohan, Rakesh and Suresh are sitting around a circle facing
the centre. Rohit is third to the left of Ram. Rohan is fourth to the right of
Ram. Mohit is fourth to the left of Suresh who is second to the right of Ram.
Sohan is third to the right of Shyam. Mohan is not an immediate neighbour
of Ram.” The options were: (A)-Ram; (B)-Mohan; (C)-Mohit; and (D)-Data
Inadequate. Petitioner opted for option ‘A’ while as per the answer key,
option ‘D’ was the correct answer. Expert Committee advised ‘withdrawal
of the question’ and the advice was based on its finding that the correct
answer was ‘Sohan’. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that since Sohan is the correct answer but was not an
option in the question paper, the question should be excluded as advised by
the Expert Committee and in order to justify his plea, learned counsel sought
to explain the seating arrangement diagrammatically as follows:
39. Reading of the question itself indicates the position of Rakesh qua
others and it is clear from the diagram that Sohan is the person who is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 27 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
second to the left of Rakesh. Significantly and ironically, the Oversight
Committee which has accepted ‘D’ as the option to be the correct option has
while examining Question No. 85 in the Master Booklet itself arrived at a
finding that when all the persons in the circle are arranged in clockwise
direction, the order will be Ram, Sohan, Mohit, Rohit, Shyam, Rohan,
Mohan, Suresh and Rakesh. Therefore, even by this arrangement, the person
who is second to left of Rakesh is Sohan. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
is thus right in his submission that the question deserves to be excluded in
light of the fact that question setter has not even provided the correct answer
as one of the options. Even the Expert Committee advised withdrawal of this
question and be it noted that as many as 275 objections were received
against this question. Oversight Committee has overruled the advice of the
Expert Committee on the sole ground that data was inadequate to arrive at
the actual position of Rakesh, which to my mind is in stark contradiction to
the data provided in the question itself and basis which the Oversight
Committee while examining another question has brought forth a seating
order in clockwise direction.
40. Therefore, in my view, this is not a case where the Court should adopt
a complete hands-off approach. The errors in Question Nos.14 and 100 are
demonstrably clear and shutting a blind eye to the same would be injustice
to the Petitioner albeit this Court is conscious of the fact that it may impact
the result of other candidates. Accordingly, it is directed that the result of the
Petitioner will be revised to award marks to him for Question No.14 in
accordance with the scheme of marking. Since Court has upheld option ‘C’
as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Expert Committee,
benefit cannot be restricted only to the Petitioner and will extend to all
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 28 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
candidates who have opted for option ‘C’. Question No.100 will be excluded
as correctly advised by the Expert Committee and the result will be
accordingly revised.
41. Writ petition is partially allowed to the aforesaid extent.
42. Writ petition stands disposed of along with pending applications.
JYOTI SINGH, J
DECEMBER 20, 2024/shivam
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17138/2024 Page 29 of 29
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:21.12.2024
18:58:24
[ad_1]
Source link