Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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