Judicial Review Cannot Replace Expert Assessment in Exam Disputes

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, in U.P. Public Service Commission through its Chairman & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026), set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had interfered with the assessment of academic experts in an examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC), holding that the High Court had exceeded the bounds of judicial review by acting as an "expert of experts." 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The dispute arose out of an examination conducted by the UPPSC, in which candidates raised objections to certain questions on grounds of ambiguity or inaccuracy. 
• The Allahabad High Court, on examining the disputed questions across different academic disciplines, issued directions to the UPPSC regarding re-evaluation of answer scripts, deletion of certain questions, and the awarding of full marks for others. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's directions, the UPPSC approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had transgressed the settled limits of judicial review in academic and examination matters. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of judicial review in academic matters: The Court held that the power of judicial review cannot be exercised to interfere with the decisions of experts in an academic field, and that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by scrutinising disputed questions as though it were itself an academic expert. 
• On the High Court's approach: The Court found that the High Court had undertaken an elaborate examination of disputed questions from different academic disciplines and had effectively substituted its own assessment for that of subject experts, contrary to the law laid down in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018). 
• On the object of judicial review: The Court underscored that judicial review in such matters is meant to examine the legality of the decision-making process, and not to reassess academic determinations on merits. 
• On the final direction: The Court set aside the High Court's directions on re-evaluation, deletion of questions, and award of full marks, and allowed the appeal. 

What are the Principles Governing Judicial Interference in Examination Matters?  

The Court reaffirmed the following principles laid down in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018), on judicial interference with examinations: 

• If the statute, rule, or regulation governing an examination permits re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, the examining authority may permit it. 
• If the statute, rule, or regulation does not expressly permit re-evaluation or scrutiny (as distinct from prohibiting it), courts may allow re-evaluation only where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without resorting to an inferential process of reasoning, and only in rare or exceptional cases. 
• Courts should not themselves re-evaluate or scrutinise answer sheets, as they lack the requisite expertise, and academic matters are best left to academics. 
• Courts must presume the correctness of the key answers provided by the examining authority and proceed on that basis. 
• Where a doubt arises, the benefit must go to the examining authority rather than to the candidate.

What is Judicial Review? 

Meaning: 

• A court proceeding examining the lawfulness of the decision-making process of a public body, not the merits of the decision itself. 
• Serves two functions: legitimising government action and protecting the Constitution from executive/legislative overreach. 
• Also referred to as the interpretational and observer role of the Indian judiciary. 

Types: 

• Review of Legislative Actions – ensures laws passed by the legislature conform to the Constitution. 
• Review of Administrative Actions – enforces constitutional discipline on administrative agencies. 
• Review of Judicial Decisions – allows courts to correct or revisit their own prior decisions. 

Scope: 
A legislative enactment or executive order can be challenged before the Supreme Court/High Court if it: 

• Violates Fundamental Rights under Part III; 
• Is outside the competence of the enacting authority; or 
• Is repugnant to constitutional provisions. 

Limitations: 

• Constrains government functioning and can override existing law beyond constitutional limits. 
• India follows separation of functions, not strict separation of powers. 
• Judicial pronouncements become binding precedent for future cases. 
• Risk of decisions being coloured by personal views; repeated judicial intervention may erode public confidence in governance. 

Constitutional Basis: 
No express provision empowers courts to invalidate laws, but judicial review is supported by: 

• Article 13 – voids laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. 
• Articles 32 & 226 – empower SC/HC as guarantors of Fundamental Rights. 
• Article 131–136 – adjudicatory/appellate jurisdiction, including constitutional interpretation binding on all courts. 
• Article 137 – SC's power to review its own judgments/orders (criminal orders reviewable only for errors apparent on record). 
• Articles 245, 246(3), 251, 254, 372(1) – govern legislative competence, Centre–State law conflicts, and continuity of pre-Constitution laws, all subject to judicial scrutiny.