The Supreme Court resolved an ambiguous Chandigarh law officer exam question after conflicting High Court rulings. Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that determining which constitutional schedule is immune from judicial review is unsuitable for multiple-choice evaluation.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court intervened to resolve an ambiguous question from a Chandigarh law officer recruitment exam after two High Court judges reached opposing conclusions.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra considered a constitutional-law question presented to candidates.
QUESTION: 73
“Which of the following Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?”
Answer choices were:
- (a) Seventh Schedule,
- (b) Ninth Schedule,
- (c) Tenth Schedule and
- (d) None of the above.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the issue had already produced divergent opinions in the High Court and held that such questions are not suitable for a multiple-choice format.
The Bench said,
“When the Judges of the High Court are at variance in their opinion as to the correct answer to Question No.73, it is least expected from mere law graduates, who are competing for a post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, to reach to a correct conclusion while answering the multiple-choice question by process of interpretation of Constitutional provisions involving this Court’s judgments in several decades,”
The Court found that both options (b) [Ninth Schedule] and (d) [None of the above] could be considered correct. It explained that, although the Ninth Schedule might seem like the right choice based on the question’s wording, constitutional developments and the Court’s jurisprudence have shown that immunity from judicial scrutiny is not absolute.
The Court held,
“From a law graduate’s point of view, both the answers may be correct, although Option ‘B’ (Ninth Schedule) appears to be more appropriate considering the language of the question asked. However, on a deeper analysis… Option ‘D’ (None of the above) can also be considered to be correct,”
To address the situation equitably, the Supreme Court directed the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to create a supernumerary post so both candidates could be appointed, clarifying that the candidate already appointed would retain seniority.
Background of the Case
The recruitment for a Law Officer involved a written exam of 100 multiple-choice questions with negative marking. The disputed question asked which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review for violating fundamental rights.
ALSO READ: CLAT 2025 UG Exam || 15 Contested Questions & Answers Before Delhi High Court
The recruiting authority had marked the Ninth Schedule as correct. One candidate, however, selected ‘None of the above’, arguing that Supreme Court rulings most notably IR Coelho establish that no Schedule has absolute immunity from judicial review. Because his answer was treated as incorrect, he lost marks that affected his ranking and selection.
He challenged the result in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A single-judge bench upheld the exam’s answer key, but a Division Bench later found ‘None of the above’ to be correct and ordered reconsideration of his candidature threatening the appointment that had already been made. The originally selected candidate appealed to the Supreme Court.
Given the question’s ambiguity and conflicting judicial views, the Supreme Court chose not to disturb the selection and instead reached an equitable outcome by accepting both answers and directing that both candidates be appointed.
The appellant was represented by RHA Sikander, Jatin Bhatt, Sanawar, Kshitij Singh, Nuzhat Naseem, Sikander Raza, Faisal Mohammed and Chirag Verma. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda along with Shubham Saigal, Siddharth Jain, Shreya Bansal, Shruti Priya Mishra, Ashish Shukla, Shubham Bhalla, Alex Noel Dass, Ragini Sharma, Neha Verma, Rohit Pandey, Aman Khatri, Yash and Amitoj Bir Singh.
Case Title: Charan Preet Singh vs. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE