The Supreme Court has clarified that High Courts cannot re-evaluate answer keys in competitive examinations, including judicial service recruitment tests. The Court held that judges cannot assume the role of subject experts while exercising judicial review.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N. V. Anjaria delivered the ruling while partly allowing an appeal filed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC). The appeal challenged a decision of the Jharkhand High Court that interfered with the revised answer key in the State Civil Judges (Junior Division) Examination.
The case is titled JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISON vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, C.A. No. 001455/2026.
Supreme Court: Judicial Review Has Clear Limits
The dispute concerned three questions—Nos. 8, 74, and 96 (Series A)—in the Civil Judges (Junior Division) recruitment examination. Candidates challenged the revised answer key issued by JPSC. The High Court accepted their objections and granted relief.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have remanded the matter to the Commission if it had doubts about the revised answers. Instead, the High Court examined the correctness of the answers itself.
JPSC argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed. The Bench stated that even though High Court judges possess vast legal experience, they cannot act as “super-examiners” or domain experts.
The Court emphasised that judicial review in examination matters has limits. Courts should not mechanically re-evaluate answer keys. Domain experts must handle such technical assessments.
Expert Committee to Re-Examine Three Questions
The Supreme Court noted that JPSC stated the High Court had vetted the answer key on the administrative side. In such circumstances, the High Court should have referred the matter to a competent committee instead of deciding the issue judicially.
The Bench directed the High Court to constitute an expert committee on the administrative side. The committee must re-examine Questions 8, 74, and 96. It should include eminent law professors as subject experts. One member must be a Professor of English to assist in evaluating the relevant question.
The committee must submit its opinion to JPSC within two weeks for necessary action.
What the High Court Had Held
Question 8: English Grammar
Question 8 asked candidates to choose the grammatically correct sentence:
- Option (A): “More than one boy was absent from the class”
- Option (B): “More than one boy were absent from the class”
In the revised key, JPSC marked Option (B) as correct. The High Court held that Option (A) was correct and declared the revised answer erroneous.
Question 74: Reference to Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
Question 74 relied on the Supreme Court’s order in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 943/2021. It asked which IPC offences the Court mentioned in that order.
JPSC marked Option (D)—Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506 IPC—as correct. The petitioners argued that the order mentioned Section 505 IPC, not Section 506 IPC.
After examining the original judgment, the High Court agreed with the petitioners. It rejected JPSC’s argument that the term “etc.” could include Section 506. The Court reasoned that such an interpretation would make the term “etc.” limitless and legally unsound.
Question 96: Law of Agency under the Indian Contract Act
Question 96 concerned Sections 184 and 186 of the Indian Contract Act.
JPSC first marked Option (C) as correct but later revised it to Option (A). The petitioners argued that Option (A) was legally incorrect. They also contended that Options (B) and (C) were incorrect statements of law.
The High Court held that Option (A) was wrong. It further observed that Option (B)—which stated that only persons of majority could act as agents—contradicted Section 184. It also held that Option (C)—which required an agent’s authority to be expressed in writing—contradicted Section 186.
The High Court concluded that both Options (B) and (C) were legally correct answers. It directed JPSC to award one mark to candidates who selected Option (A) in Question 8. It also directed deletion of Questions 74 and 96 from consideration.
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Determination
The Supreme Court did not examine the correctness of the disputed answers. Instead, it held that the High Court should not have undertaken that exercise while exercising judicial review.
The Court partly set aside the High Court’s judgment to the extent it determined the correctness of the answer key. It remitted the matter for reconsideration by an expert committee.
The ruling reiterates that courts must exercise restraint in academic and technical matters. Even in judicial service examinations, subject experts—not courts—must reassess answer keys.
