The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging two questions in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Preliminary Examination 2026, observing that courts can interfere with an answer key only where the error is “so glaring and apparent” that no inferential process or reasoning is required to establish it.

The Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Arun Bhardwaj was hearing a plea challenging Question Nos. 8 and 51 of Question Paper Series 'D' of the DHJS Preliminary Examination held on July 26.

The Petitioner had sought deletion of the two questions and consequential recalculation of his marks.

The Court noted that the model answer key was published on July 28 and candidates were given three days to raise objections.

The Petitioner did not raise any objection to the two questions, although other candidates had done so.

An expert committee was constituted to consider the objections. Its recommendations were accepted by a committee of the High Court on August 12. While eleven questions were deleted, the objections concerning the two questions challenged by the Petitioner were rejected.

The Petitioner subsequently approached the Court after the result was declared on August 14. He had failed to meet the cut-off by 0.25%.

The Petitioner challenged Question No. 8, which concerned a Will executed by a person while in a state of intoxication. He argued that the level of intoxication would have to be considered to determine whether the testator was of sound mind.

As regards Question No. 51, concerning the formation of a contract following an offer, acceptance and subsequent revocation, the Petitioner contended that the effect of postal rules had been incorrectly considered while framing the options.

The Court however noted that the scope of judicial interference in examination matters is “limited and well defined”.

“The mistake should be so glaring that it should need no inferences to be drawn or support of reasoning to reveal a mistake,” it observed.

It further noted that there is a presumption regarding the correctness of a question and its answer, and that in case of doubt, the benefit should go to the examining body.

The Bench found that the challenges raised by the Petitioner were based on analysis and inferences. The Court further held that even if it were to agree with the Petitioner on the correct option, it could not substitute its own opinion for that of the expert committee constituted to consider objections to Questions 8 and 51.

It also considered the fact that the Petitioner had not raised objections within the prescribed time. “The timeline is significant considering the preparations required at each stage for conducting such examinations,” it said.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Appearance: Dr. Mithlesh Kumar, Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh and Mr. Gulab Chandra Yadav, Advs. for Petitioner; Dr. Amit George, Mr. Arnav Bhansali and Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Advs. for Respondents