The Delhi High Court has reiterated that judicial review remains available where the official answer key of a competitive examination contains manifestly incorrect or demonstrably unacceptable answers, emphasising that such a challenge is fundamentally different from seeking re-evaluation of answer sheets.
In Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) 7786/2026), the Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that the Tribunal had adopted an erroneous approach by treating the petition as one seeking re-evaluation rather than a challenge to the correctness of the official model answer key.
Background
The petitioner, an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate, had appeared in the UPSC Indian Forest Service Examination, 2022 but failed to qualify. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging that the official answer key contained incorrect answers for Question Nos. 88 and 96 of the General Studies Paper-I, which adversely affected his result.
For Question 88, relating to the writ of Mandamus and Quo Warranto, the UPSC answer key declared Option (D) as correct. The petitioner argued that Option (C) was the legally correct answer, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, which clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to government companies and certain private bodies discharging public duties.
For Question 96, concerning foreign-owned e-commerce firms and India’s FDI policy, the UPSC answer key identified Option (D) as correct. The petitioner contended that Option (B) correctly reflected the Foreign Direct Investment policy, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, and Press Note No. 3 of 2016 governing marketplace e-commerce entities.
Tribunal’s Decision
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by relying on judicial precedents holding that candidates have no absolute right to seek re-evaluation of examination papers. It did not examine whether the model answers themselves were legally sustainable.
Answer Key Disputes Are Not the Same as Re-Evaluation Claims
The Delhi High Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning legally flawed. The Court observed that the petitioner was not asking for re-evaluation of his answer sheet. Instead, he was challenging the correctness of the official answer key issued by UPSC.
Drawing a clear distinction between the two, the Bench observed that there is no absolute prohibition on judicial scrutiny of official answer keys where the suggested answers are patently incorrect.
The Court stated:
“It is settled law that there is no absolute bar on a Court examining such a contention and that, if the suggested answers as per the suggested answer keys are patently incorrect, the Court can interfere.”
Reliance on Earlier Delhi High Court Judgment
The Bench referred to its earlier decision in Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7144), where the Delhi High Court had comprehensively examined the law governing challenges to answer keys.
Reaffirming that precedent, the Court held that:
- Courts will ordinarily not interfere where the disputed answer admits of more than one plausible interpretation.
- Judicial review is also unwarranted where the official answer represents one possible reasonable view.
- However, where the suggested answer is demonstrably unacceptable or manifestly erroneous, courts are duty-bound to intervene ex debito justitiae to prevent injustice.
No Opinion on Merits
Importantly, the High Court deliberately refrained from deciding whether the petitioner’s answers were actually correct.
Instead, it held that since the Tribunal had failed to examine the controversy on merits, the appropriate course was to restore the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
Directions Issued
Accordingly, the Court:
- Set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 12 December 2025;
- Remanded the Original Application to the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh consideration;
- Requested the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously since it concerned the petitioner’s candidature to the Indian Forest Service;
- Directed both parties to appear before the Tribunal on 6 July 2026 and specifically ordered that no adjournment shall be sought on that date.
Reaffirming Fairness in Competitive Examinations
The judgment reinforces that candidates may challenge an official answer key when it contains manifestly incorrect answers, even though courts generally do not permit re-evaluation of examination papers. By distinguishing an answer key dispute from a re-evaluation request, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that judicial review remains available to correct obvious errors and uphold fairness in competitive examinations.