Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Answer Key in Judicial Services Exam; Rejects Petitioner’s Challenge on Section 91 Cr.P.C. Interpretation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Answer Key of the Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Examination 2023, particularly regarding Question No. 154. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, held that the challenge to the answer key did not meet the criteria for court intervention.

Legal Point of Judgment: The crux of the judgment focused on the interpretation of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), in the context of its application by the accused at the stage of charge in a trial.

Background and Issue: The petitioner, a candidate in the DJS Preliminary Examination, contested the correctness of ‘Option (2)’ in the Answer Key for Question No. 154, asserting that ‘Option (1)’ was accurate. The dispute revolved around whether an accused could invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. for document production or preservation at the charge consideration stage.

Examination of Legal Provisions: The court delved into the interpretation of Section 91 Cr.P.C., referencing Supreme Court judgments in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi and others.

Judicial Precedents Considered: The bench considered relevant Supreme Court judgments, highlighting that while ordinarily, an accused might not invoke Section 91 at the charge stage, the court could summon documents, subject to satisfaction.

Finality of Exam Authority’s Decision: Emphasizing the sanctity of the exam conducting authority’s decisions, the court noted that unless an answer is demonstrably wrong, judicial interference is unwarranted.

Decision: The High Court found the petitioner’s challenge lacking merit, thereby upholding the Answer Key’s correctness. The petition and the pending application were dismissed.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2024.

Jharna vs. Delhi High Court

Latest Legal News