In a recent order, the Delhi High Court declined to offer relief to a candidate of the 2023 Delhi Judicial Service Examination, even after finding merit in their challenge regarding a mistake in the official answer key. The Court emphasized the principle of judicial discipline, pointing to a similar case that had already been decided by a coordinate bench.
Read also: Delhi High Court Dismisses RCB’s Plea Against Uber Moto Ad Featuring Travis Head
A division bench consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul acknowledged the issue raised by the petitioner. The candidate had answered “false” to Question 11 (iv), which stated that an agreement where both parties are under a mistake of fact is voidable at the option of either party. However, the official key had marked this answer as incorrect.
“We confess that we were initially inclined to agree… There is in fact no provision in the Contract Act under which a contract, in which both the parties to the contract are suffering from a mistake of fact, is voidable at the option of one of the parties… Section 20 makes such a contract void, and not voidable at the option of one of the parties,”
— Delhi High Court
The Court acknowledged that the candidate's answer was legally accurate based on Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, which clearly states that when both parties are mistaken about a fact essential to the agreement, the contract is void—not voidable.
Despite this, the bench did not grant any relief to the petitioner. It referred to the case of Shobhin Bali v Registrar General, Delhi High Court, where a similar issue was raised and relief was denied. In that case, the coordinate bench had ruled that the entire examination process should not be disturbed just because a different answer might seem more appropriate.
“We are, however, constrained by considerations of judicial discipline in adopting the said view. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has, after taking into account the answer of the Examiner, held that, even if ‘false’ was a more appropriate answer to Question 11 (iv), that would not make out a case for interference.”
— Division Bench
The Court added that the Supreme Court had also upheld the decision of the coordinate bench after hearing all parties involved, reinforcing the need to maintain consistency in judicial decisions.
“We regret our inability to provide any succour to the petitioner,”
— Delhi High Court
With this, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the Court’s commitment to established precedent and the need for consistency in judicial examinations, even in the face of acknowledged errors.
Appearance: Mr. Rakesh Khanna Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Mr. Yogesh Narula, Mr. Dhiraj, Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Mr. Akshat Vachher, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Ashima Chopra and Ms. Gunita Tandon, Advs. for Respondent
Case title: Abhin Narula v. The High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4913/2025
