Judges can't be experts in all fields, refuses to stay UPPSC mains: SC

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jun 14 2018 | 7:05 PM IST

Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and they must exercise great restraint in interfering with the opinion of experts, the Supreme Court today said while refusing to stay the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) mains examination slated to be held on June 18.

The top court said judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters and unless the candidate demonstrates that the key answers were patently wrong, the courts cannot enter into this field.

A vacation bench of justices U U Lalit and Deepak Gupta set aside the Allahabad High Court's March 30 order by which it had directed for re-evaluation of answer sheets of the preliminary examination for upper-subordinate services in Uttar Pradesh.

"When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts," the bench said while dismissing a batch of petitions of students seeking stay of the mains examination.

It said the law was well settled that onus was on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer was incorrect, but also that it was a glaring mistake on the face of it and no inferential process or reasoning was required to show that the key answer was wrong.

"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 answer is better or more correct," it said.

The bench said that constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of key answers.

Referring to a 1983 verdict, it said the court had recommended a system of moderation, avoiding ambiguity in the questions and prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

It noted that UPPSC even before publishing the first list of answer keys got it moderated by two expert committees and invited objections, which were also examined by a 26-member expert committee.

It said that the 26-member expert committee after examining the objections had recommended that five questions needs to be deleted and in two questions, key answers should be changed.

The court said that all the questions needed a long process of reasoning and the high court itself has noticed that the stand of the commission is also supported by certain text books.

"In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the high court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions, which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field," it said, setting aside the order of the high court.

On June 12, the apex court had said the sanctity of an examination would be lost if courts through their power of judicial review keep interfering with the decisions taken by authorities conducting competitive tests.

The top court said a line needs to be drawn to determine to what extent a judicial review can be allowed of the decisions taken by authorities conducting the examinations.

The top court's order came on an appeal filed by the UPPSC and pleas of students who have alleged that answers to several questions asked in the commission's preliminary examination held last year were "incorrect".

They also said that the UPPSC has not followed the Allahabad High Court's March 30 order directing for re-evaluation of answer sheets of the preliminary test.

The mains examination, which was postponed earlier, is now scheduled to be held on June 18.

The UPPSC is conducting the examination for 677 posts of upper-subordinate services of the state for which advertisement was issued on February 2017.

The preliminary examination for 677 posts was conducted in September 2017.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jun 14 2018 | 7:05 PM IST

Next Story