The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of National Board of Examination vs Association of MD Physicians consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that Courts must curb their temptation to interfere with the question paper and answer key in the face of a counter view of subject experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction
Facts
This appeal was filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against the judgement passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein, an association consisting of Indian citizens holding degrees in medicine from foreign universities, claiming that there was a patently erroneous question in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) Screening Test examination paper. During the proceedings, the Respondent herein restricted its relief to the grant of one additional mark to the candidates who had taken the said paper, which was allowed.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The impugned Judgement does not conform with the settled law of the land. since the Supreme Court held in Kanpur University, Through Vice Chancellor and Ors. v, Samir Gupta and Ors. and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh that when it came to conflicting views about the key answers in an exam, then the Courts must bow down to the opinion of the experts and cannot take on the role of the experts in academic matters. Sympathy or compassion must not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation.
Respondent: Decision was based on the response of the RGI, the actual body responsible for the SRS – a fact not under dispute by either of the parties. U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh (supra) does not completely bar the Courts from entering the academic field, but states that the candidate must demonstrate that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the scope of judicial review when it comes to correctness of key answer has been considered time and again by the Supreme Court wherein the norm has been to entertain such challenges on a very limited ground and give due weight to the opinions of subject experts. The Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh (supra) had observed that constitutional courts must exercise restraint in matters of this nature and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers and had laid down certain conclusions in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. V. State of U.P. and Ors. about the Court’s ability to substitute its own views for that of the examiners and award additional marks consequently.
It opined that Judges cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction. It needs to be demonstrated by a candidate that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, and if there is any exercise conducted by the Court wherein the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken into consideration, that will inevitably amount to unwarranted interference on the part of the Court. When there are conflicting views, it is incumbent upon the Court to bow down to the opinion of the experts which, in this case, was the Expert Committee constituted by the National Board of Examination.
It was also noted that the learned Counsel for the Respondent was unable to demonstrate the consent of the Appellant in calling for the short affidavit on behalf of the RGI. Furthermore, the Appellant had also constituted a five-member Committee with experts in to look into the correctness of the contentious question, and it had concluded that the question was technically correct and valid.
Judgment ;
The Bench allowed the instant appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.
Case: National Board of Examination vs Association of MD Physicians
Citation: LPA 225/2021 & CM APPLs.24695/2021 & 47088/2021
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on: 5th August 2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments