“Court Cannot Substitute Its Wisdom For That Of The Examiner": Delhi HC Dismisses Law Student's Plea Challenging Lower Marks Awarded To Him
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a law student under Article 226 of the Constitution for interference with the marks awarded to him by the Faculty of Law, Delhi University.
A Law student, unhappy with the marks he obtained in his examinations, pleaded before the High Court to assess whether a correctly answered question had been awarded the marks it deserved. He argued that the questions demanded detailed responses, and while he believed his answers were correct, he received lower marks than expected.
A Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed, “These questions are subjective in nature and it is not possible for this Court to substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the examiner and assess, for itself, the number of marks to be awarded against each of them.”
Advocate Brajesh Kumar represented the petitioner, while Advocate Mohinder J.S. Rupal appeared for the respondents.
“The questions forming subject matter of the petitioner’s grievance in paper…are questions calling for detailed answers and, therefore, if the examiner did not deem the answer provided by way of response to the question sufficient to warrant more than the marks that he awarded against the said answers, the Court must defer to the wisdom of the examiner. It would be improper for the Court to sit in judicial review, much less appeal, over the examiner’s decision,” the Court stated.
The Bench stated that the student was not able to make out a convincing case to justify interference by the Court within the “extremely narrow and circumscribed sphere” of its interference with marks awarded by the examiner, as envisaged by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“It would not, in fact, in my opinion, be erroneous, as a proposition of law, to state that, where the questions are subjective, calling for detailed answers, as opposed to objective type questions, the possibility of judicial review over the marks awarded by the examiner is almost totally foreclosed,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court expressed regret for not being able to come to the aid of the student.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Hardeep v. University Of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3704)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Brajesh Kumar, Phillip Massey, Dev Suman Mohanpuria, Neha Raj, Arya and Charanjan
Respondents: Advocates Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Hardik Rupal
