The Delhi High Court recently addressed a petition concerning an alleged error in the answer key of the 2023 Delhi Judicial Service Examination. The petitioner challenged the correctness of a specific answer, asserting that the official key contradicted the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. Specifically, the dispute centered on Question 11(iv), which pertained to contracts formed under mutual mistake of fact. The petitioner selected "false" as the correct response, aligning with Section 20 of the Act, which deems such contracts void. However, the official answer key marked this choice as incorrect, leading to the petitioner's grievance.
Upon reviewing the matter, the division bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, acknowledged the validity of the petitioner's argument. They concurred that, under Section 20, a contract formed under mutual mistake of fact is indeed void, not voidable. Despite this agreement, the bench refrained from granting relief, citing the principle of judicial discipline. They referenced a prior decision in the case of Shobhin Bali v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, where a similar challenge was dismissed. In that instance, the court held that even if an alternative answer appeared more appropriate, it did not warrant interference with the examination process.
The bench emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in judicial decisions, especially when a coordinate bench has previously adjudicated on a similar issue. They noted that the earlier decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, further solidifying its authority. Consequently, despite recognizing the merit in the petitioner's claim, the court felt compelled to adhere to established precedent and dismissed the petition.
This case underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in intervening with examination processes. Courts often exhibit restraint, intervening only when an answer key is demonstrably incorrect to the extent that no reasonable expert would deem it accurate. The judiciary acknowledges the expertise of examination authorities and refrains from substituting its judgment unless there is clear evidence of error or injustice.
Furthermore, the decision highlights the balance courts strive to maintain between correcting potential errors and preserving the integrity of standardized examinations. While individual grievances are taken seriously, the overarching principle is to ensure that the examination process remains fair and consistent for all candidates. In this context, even a recognized mistake may not lead to relief if it risks undermining the examination's integrity or contradicts established judicial precedent.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's decision reflects a commitment to judicial discipline and consistency. While acknowledging the petitioner's valid concerns, the court prioritized adherence to precedent and the broader implications for the examination system. This approach reinforces the principle that while errors in examination processes are regrettable, remedies must be balanced against the need for consistency and fairness in judicial decisions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.