Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Evaluate Answer Keys in Judicial Service Exams

The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts should not directly re-examine or correct answer keys in judicial service examinations. It clarified that courts cannot take over the role of subject experts while exercising judicial review.

The case arose from the Jharkhand Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) challenged a decision of the Jharkhand High Court, which had interfered with the revised answer key for three questions in the exam.

What the Supreme Court Said

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria, observed that even though High Court judges have vast legal experience, they cannot assume the role of “super-examiners” or domain experts.

The Court explained that judicial review does not mean that courts can reassess answer keys on their own. If there is a dispute regarding the correctness of answers, the matter should be referred to expert committees.

The Supreme Court noted that if the High Court found the revised answers doubtful, it should have sent the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration instead of deciding the correctness itself.

Direction to Form Expert Committee

The Supreme Court partly set aside the High Court’s order. It directed the Jharkhand High Court to constitute a fresh expert committee on the administrative side.

This committee must include subject experts, such as experienced law professors and one Professor of English. The committee will re-examine Questions 8, 74 and 96 and send its opinion to JPSC within two weeks for further action.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy related to three questions in Series A of the examination.

Question 8 – English Grammar

The question asked candidates to choose the correct English sentence.

• Option (A): “More than one boy was absent from the class.”
• Option (B): “More than one boy were absent from the class.”

The JPSC revised answer key treated Option (B) as correct. The High Court disagreed and held that Option (A) was grammatically correct.

Question 74 – Supreme Court Judgment

This question was based on the Supreme Court decision in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India. It asked which IPC sections were mentioned in that judgment.

JPSC marked Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 as correct. However, the petitioners argued that Section 506 was not mentioned, and instead Section 505 was referred to in the original judgment.

The High Court agreed with the petitioners and rejected the argument that the word “etc.” in the judgment could include Section 506.

Question 96 – Law of Agency

This question concerned provisions under the Indian Contract Act.

JPSC initially marked one option as correct but later revised it. The High Court found that the revised answer was incorrect and that more than one option could be treated as correct based on Sections 184 and 186 of the Indian Contract Act.

Accordingly, the High Court directed JPSC to award marks or delete certain questions.

Supreme Court’s Key Observation

The Supreme Court emphasised that the power of judicial review must be exercised carefully. Even in judicial service exams, courts should not independently evaluate the correctness of answers.

Instead, such matters should be examined by expert committees. Courts may intervene only to ensure fairness in the process, not to act as academic evaluators.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to form an expert committee to reconsider the three disputed questions. After re-examination, the committee’s opinion will be sent to JPSC for necessary action within two weeks.

The ruling reinforces the principle that courts must respect the role of domain experts in academic and competitive examinations, even when the examination relates to recruitment in the judicial services.

Case: Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. State of Jharkhand, Civil Appeal No. 1455 of 2026.