Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High 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