Delhi HC Denies Relief To Judiciary Candidate Despite Mistake In Answer Key, Cites Earlier Order Denying Relief In Similar Case
In a peculiar order, the Delhi High Court found force in a challenge to the 2023 Delhi Judicial Service Exam answer key but did not grant any relief to the aggrieved aspirant, citing a coordinate bench decision denying relief in a similar case. A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said it had to exercise 'judicial discipline'.Section 20 of the Contract...
In a peculiar order, the Delhi High Court found force in a challenge to the 2023 Delhi Judicial Service Exam answer key but did not grant any relief to the aggrieved aspirant, citing a coordinate bench decision denying relief in a similar case.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said it had to exercise 'judicial discipline'.
Section 20 of the Contract Act specifically states that a contract, in which both parties are suffering from a mistake of fact, is void.
The petitioner had ticked the “false” choice against Question 11 (iv) of the exam which said that such an agreement is voidable at the option of either of the parties. His answer was however marked as incorrect.
“We confess that we were initially inclined to agree…There is in fact no provision in the Contract Act under which a contract, in which both the parties to the contract are suffering from a mistake of fact, is voidable at the option of one of the parties…Section 20 makes such a contract void, and not voidable at the option of one of the parties,” the bench observed at the outset.
However, it then referred to Shobhin Bali v Registrar General Delhi High Court where a similar challenge was dismissed by a coordinate bench. It was held therein that merely because the Court may form a prima facie opinion that another answer may have been more appropriate to the questions, the entire result and the selection process should not be upset.
It is citing this decision that the division bench said,
“We are, however, constrained by considerations of judicial discipline in adopting the said view. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has, after taking into account the answer of the Examiner, held that, even if “false” was a more appropriate answer to Question 11 (iv), that would not make out a case for interference.”
It also noted that the decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court after hearing the parties in detail.
“We regret our inability to provide any succour to the petitioner,” the Court said and dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Mr. Rakesh Khanna Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Mr. Yogesh Narula, Mr. Dhiraj, Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Mr. Akshat Vachher, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Ashima Chopra and Ms. Gunita Tandon, Advs. for Respondent
Case title: Abhin Narula v. The High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 514
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4913/2025