Supreme Court of India· 09 September 2026

Does a challenge to an answer key's correctness require a mistake so glaring that no inferential reasoning is needed to establish it?

UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION v. ASHOK YADAV & ORS

2026 INSC 991
Coram: Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Vijay Bishnoi

🔖 Save this judgment 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A challenge to an answer key's correctness requires a mistake so glaring that no inferential reasoning is needed to establish it.

Yes. A challenge to an examination answer key's correctness requires demonstrating a mistake so glaring and apparent that no inferential process of reasoning is needed to show it exists; the court does not itself re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer, since it has no expertise and academic matters are best left to academics. Where the correctness of the key is only doubtful, the benefit goes to the examining body, not the candidate.

Headnote

Judicial review — Examination answer keys — Scope of interference — Presumption of correctness — Glaring mistake standard — Judicial review — Examination answer keys — Standard for interference — Held: A challenge to an answer key succeeds only where the mistake is so glaring that no inferential reasoning is needed to show it. The court does not itself re-evaluate the answer, and any doubt is resolved in the examining body's favour. (¶20, 22) Judicial review — Correction of a question or answer — When interference is warranted — Held further: The Court may exclude a question shown to be incorrect, or admitting two correct answers among the options given, and may direct marks for the correct answer instead. Absent a glaring mistake, the examining body's chosen answer stands. (¶22, 32) Judicial review — Question read as it stands — Disposition — Held further: An examination question or answer is tested as it stands, not as it ought to have been framed. Finding no such glaring mistake here, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's review order set aside. (¶29, 30, 33)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 20In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.[^6] this Court after considering earlier decisions culled out legal principles delineating the scope of judicial review while examining a challenge to the correctness of the key answer(s) and seeking re- evaluation of the answer script. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:

Paragraph 22The legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decision(s) is that a challenge to the correctness of answer key must be entertained only where the mistake is so glaring and apparent that no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the mistake exists. Besides, while considering a challenge to the correctness of a question or an answer, the court must bear in mind that there is a presumption about the correctness of the question/ answer, and the onus is on the candidate to demonstrate that it is incorrect. Further, in the event of a mere doubt about the correctness of the question or the answer, the benefit should go to the examining body and not to the candidate. However, where it is demonstrated that the question itself is incorrect, or there could be two correct answers to the question when only one is to be chosen from the options provided, the Court may interfere and order exclusion of the suspect or offending question from evaluation. In a situation where the question is correct and is admissible to only one answer and that answer is amongst the options provided but is not the one chosen by the examining body, the Court may direct the examining body to award marks only for the correct answer and revise the result accordingly. While entertaining a petition in such matters, courts must be strict in condoning laches, if any, having regard to the ensuing consequences. Besides, the court may reject a challenge if the procedure prescribed to raise objection(s) to the question/ answer, within a specified time frame, is not followed.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION v. ASHOK YADAV & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is an examination question shown to be incorrect, or one admitting two correct answers among the options given, liable to exclusion from evaluation?Is an examination question or answer tested as it stands, not as it ought to have been framed?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections