Tanay Goyal*

Source : Eduadvice

This article examines the judiciary’s role in reviewing examination answer keys, focusing on its limitations and principles in interfering with academic matters. It discusses key judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts that establish a cautious approach to judicial intervention, emphasizing that courts lack the expertise to evaluate academic content and should defer to subject matter experts.
Through case analysis, the article highlights the threshold for judicial scrutiny, which requires errors to be “palpably and demonstrably erroneous” without inference. The article also critiques inefficiencies in exam administration, as evidenced by controversies surrounding the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) answer keys. While Courts uphold procedural fairness and protect student rights, they balance this with the need to maintain the integrity of academic evaluations. The article concludes with a call for systemic reforms in examination processes to ensure transparency, fairness, and meritocracy.

Recently, a case was filed in the Supreme Court wherein the petitioners had challenged the provisional answer key released by the Consortium of National Law Universities for the Common Law Admission Test – PG (CLAT-PG) 2025 exam.      The petitioners had alleged that various answers provided in the provisional answer key are incorrect. The petitioners had prayed that the Hon’ble Court stay the final result of the exam and subsequent counselling. The plea of the petitioners was dismissed on 9^th December, 2024 by the Apex Court while observing that the petitioners should approach the jurisdictional High Court before coming to the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court was also approached by some applicants challenging the answer key of CLAT (UG) – 2025. On December 20, 2024, the Delhi High Court partly allowed the petition finding that there were 2 errors in the key answers provided by the Consortium of NLUs in the final answer key for CLAT (UG) 2025. The Court directed the Consortium to revise the results after changing the marks of students as per the directions of the Court.

The general procedure that the examination bodies have adopted is, first, releasing a provisional answer key of the exam and inviting objections to the same. Next, after receiving objections from candidates, the objections are sent to an expert body for their opinion/report on the same. After receiving the opinion/report of the Expert Body, the examination body follows the report and deletes some questions or changes the answer key of some questions. The final answer key and the results are then released. The challenge to these answer keys most frequently comes after the release of the final answer keys. When provisional answer keys are challenged, the candidates challenging the same plead that certain key answers, as released by the examination body, are incorrect and that therefore they should be revised and that the entire admission/recruitment process should be stayed. The examination bodies, apart from objecting to any stay on their admission/recruitment process on the ground that finality must be given to an examination process lest the process would be unending which is against public interest, have always argued that a challenge to a provisional answer key is misplaced as the final answer keys are yet to be released after a consideration by an Expert Committee of the objections forwarded by the candidates against the provisional answer key. The opinion of Courts has been that since objections have been called and a final answer key is yet to be released, approaching the Court by challenging the provisional answer key is a premature step.

This article aims to explore the extent of interference that the Courts have allowed themselves in matters of review of answer keys. Let us see what the Courts have observed when dealing with cases wherein the final answer keys have been challenged.

Jurisprudence on the Role of the Judiciary in Review of Answer Keys

i) Kanpur University and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta and Ors. [AIR 1983 SC 1230]

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a challenge to the answer key of the Combined Pre-Medical Test conducted by the State of Uttar Pradesh, inter alia, observed that the answer key that has been released by the University tasked with conducting the examination that particular year should be assumed to be correct and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. The Court added that the people challenging the answer key have to clearly demonstrate that an answer is wrong, i.e., “it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct”.[1] It was also observed by the Court that if there is a case of doubt, key answers already provided have to be adhered to but if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. The Court based this reasoning on two aspects, which, interestingly, indicate a pro-student and also a pro-teacher outlook. First, that the future of students should not be put at stake due to a fault of the University, and second, that the Court would limit its interference when it comes to academic matters as they are best left to experts and that Courts cannot take the place of academic experts. In this case, the key answers were shown to be incorrect without any process of inference, i.e., they were wrong on the face of it. Therefore, the Court ordered re-assessment of those particular questions. The Court, by way of this finding, set one of the standards of interference allowed to the Court to provide its opinion in the correctness of an answer as per the answer key.

ii) Manish Ujwal and Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Ors. [(2005) 13 SCC 744]

In this case, some candidates, who had participated in the exam conducted by the Respondent University for admission to medical and dental colleges in the State of Rajasthan, had challenged the answer key to six questions of the entrance exam. The Single Judge of the High Court, dismissing the plea of the candidates, opined that one could not say with certainty that the answer key provided by the Respondent University was erroneous or incorrect. The order of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The candidates finally approached the Supreme Court against the same. The Court, relying on the observations made in Kanpur University (supra), noted that if there is any doubt regarding the correctness of an answer key, then the assumption is taken as to its correctness and the Court would unquestionably prefer the answer keys. In the present case, the petitioners were able to show the Court that the six key answers were demonstrably wrong. The Court noted that since the key answers were palpably and demonstrably erroneous, the judgment of the High Court was set aside.[2] The Court, although ruled that the six key answers require correction, also observed that in case of doubt, the benefit goes to the University and not to the students, and therefore, the University (examination authority) has to be very cautious while setting up the answer keys.

The main test for interference with answer keys is that the candidates have to show to the Court that the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. The Courts, in different judgments, have explained what palpably and demonstrably erroneous actually means. In Kanpur University (supra), the Court explained that the answer key must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, i.e., it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.

iii) Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs State of UP and Ors. [(2018) 2 SCC 357]

The Court, while dealing with the question of permissibility of re-evaluation of answer sheets, noted that:

if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.[3]

iv) UP Public Service Commission and Anr. vs. Rahul Singh and Anr. [(2018) 7 SCC 254]

The Apex Court has also stated that:

The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers.[4]

The Court also stated that:

Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct.[5]

Looking at the scope of judicial scrutiny afforded to the Constitutional Courts in academic matters, the Courts have observed that the scope of interference is very limited. It has been constantly observed that Constitutional Courts ought to be extremely reluctant to substitute their own views as to what is correct in relation to academic matters over answers formulated by professional experts.

v) Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 309]

The Supreme Court observed that:

“this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters”.

It also went on to say that:

“in view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee”.

The Rationale for this Limited Intervention

When we examine the judgments mentioned above, it becomes clear that the legal landscape has established a firm principle: Courts should not delve into re-evaluating or scrutinizing a candidate’s answer sheets or answer keys. The judicial branch lacks the academic expertise required for such assessments, and it’s crucial that academic matters remain within the realm of academic professionals. The role of the court is confined to reviewing the administrative or statutory processes involved—those that are inherently public in nature—to ensure they are conducted fairly and according to established procedures. The Courts have observed that when exercising the power of judicial review under writ jurisdiction in matters related to academics, it is unquestionable that the Courts do not have the expertise to evaluate or assess answers to questions in examinations and the scope of commenting on independent assessments, analysis, and conclusions of experts, who have evaluated the answers to the questions, is even more limited and circumscribed. They have taken a very restrictive approach and have said that sympathy and compassion does not and cannot play any role in academic matters; they have also constantly held that the entire examination process cannot be frustrated only because some candidates are disappointed/dissatisfied with their results. The reason that the judiciary has taken this stand is that this interference creates a challenging situation for examination authorities, subjecting them to intense scrutiny while shifting focus away from the candidates.

Furthermore, the culmination of an extensive and often prolonged examination process is overshadowed by a sense of uncertainty. While the significant effort candidates invest in preparing for these examinations is undeniable, it is equally important to recognize the considerable dedication and meticulous planning undertaken by examination authorities to ensure the smooth conduct of the process. Inevitably, given the scale and complexity of such tasks, occasional lapses may surface. However, before intervening, Courts also take into account the robust internal mechanisms and checks established by examination authorities to maintain integrity, balancing these against the hard work of candidates who have successfully navigated the process.

In this limited judicial review, the court focuses on detecting any illegalities, the absence of malice or bad faith, and ensuring that decisions are not so unreasonable that no rational individual would arrive at the same conclusion under similar circumstances. Given this narrow scope for judicial scrutiny, examinees face a significant challenge when it comes to contesting the accuracy of key answers and the evaluation of their answer sheets. They bear the heavy burden of proving that the examination authority and its experts have arrived at key answers that are undeniably and grossly incorrect—without resorting to any sort of inferential reasoning.

The Delhi HC’s Reasoning

The Delhi High Court, while partly allowing the plea of a candidate who had challenged the certain key answers in the final answer key released by the Consortium of NLUs for CLAT (UG) 2025, held that the law on this issue does not mandate for a complete ‘hands-off’ approach by the Courts and that in circumstances where the Courts finds that certain answers, as noted above, are palpably and demonstrably erroneous, the Courts have the right to interfere into the correctness of such key answers. The Court found that it cannot turn a blind eye to the case of candidates, who are already in a less powerful position than the examination authority, and cannot give approval to something that is patently incorrect. The Court directed the Consortium to revise the result by changing the answer of one question (Q. 14) and deleting one question (Q. 100).

While doing so, the Court noted that the Oversight Committee of the Consortium had overruled the report of the Expert Committee, which had prepared a report on the objections received, and that the Expert Committee was correct in recommending a change in the key answer to one question. The Court observed that on a prima facie examination of the question and the key answer, it is apparent that the answer prescribed by the Consortium as per the final answer key is incorrect and deserves to be changed. Even in the second question that has been directed to be deleted, the Court observed that the Expert Committee had recommended that this question be deleted as none of the options provided was correct, but again, the Oversight Committee overruled the report of the Experts.[6]

The issues surrounding answer keys reveal significant inefficiencies in the administration of competitive exams. Courts have emphasized the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure fairness and uphold meritocracy in the process. As public institutions, testing agencies have a crucial role in safeguarding students’ rights. They must adopt transparent, error-free, and student-cantered policies to create an equitable testing environment for all.

[1] Kanpur University and Ors. vs Samir Gupta and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1230.

[2] Manish Ujwal and Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 744.

[3] Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of UP and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357.

[4] UP Public Service Commission and Anr. vs. Rahul Singh and Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 254.

[5] Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan and Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 309. Also see, Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Saumil Garg and Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 749; Rishal and Ors. vs. RPSC and Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 81; Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. vs. State of J&K, 2023/INSC/309 (Supreme Court); Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors., (2020) 6 SCC 362.

[6] Aditya Singh (Minor) vs Consortium of National Law Universities, 2024:DHC:9846 (Delhi High Court).

*The author is a graduate from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad (Batch of 2023) and is currently practicing as an advocate in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.