Ritik Srivastava vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon'Ble Siddharth Nandan, J.

Heard Mr. Ritik Srivastava, appearing in person, Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, appearing on behalf of respondents.

In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the report of the Expert has been placed before this Court in a sealed cover, which is taken on record. On a direction of this Court, the sealed cover was opened.

The certificate of key challenge is part of the record, and according to the Expert's remarks, the correct answer to the Question No. 144 is at Serial No. 1 i.e. "Separation of Power". For ready reference, Question No. 144 is reproduced below:

The petitioner has contended that though the answer at Serial No. 1 i.e. "Separation of Power" is a correct answer, but however "Supremacy of the Court" may also be considered as a correct answer and relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others; reported in 1983 4 SCC 309, he has submitted that in a system of multiple choice/objective type test, care must be taken to see that the question having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. He has further contended that there is a distinction between the supremacy of the court i.e. authority of the court and supremacy of the constitution. In his argument he has tried to impress upon the Court that in case the option at Serial No. 4 would have been 'Supremacy of the Constitution', the same would have been an incorrect answer to the Question No. 144, since supremacy of the constitution is a part of the federal constitution; but however in view of the distinction between the 'Supremacy of the Court' and 'Supremacy of the Constitution', the answer at Serial No. 4 is also correct, i.e. not being a feature of the federal constitution.

He has also placed reliance upon an extract of a book by a renowned author Acharya Dr. D.D. Basu i.e. "Commentary on the Constitution of India, Eighth Edition, 2007 Vol. (1); wherein while dealing with the subject of federal system, the author has expressed that the consensus of opinion, with respect to the essential feature of the federal system which are as follows:

Relying on the aforesaid extract, the petitioner has submitted that it is the 'Supremacy of the Constitution' which is the part of the federal Constitution and not the "Supremacy of the Court", however this Court finds that the 'Authority of the Court" is also seen to be an integral part of the federal system as it bears the burden, to interpret the Constitution while determining and maintaining a balance not only between the branches of the Government but also between the States; and as such 'Supremacy of the Court' cannot be said to be not a feature of the federal constitution.

The petitioner has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of 2004, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 1 wherein while considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of In re: Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, reported in AIR 1954 SC 745, the Court considered the essential characteristic of federalism i.e. the distribution of limited executive, legislative and judicial authority among the bodies which are coordinate with and independent of each other.

The petitioner by placing reliance upon the observation in the aforesaid case, has submitted that supremacy of the constitution is fundamental to the existence of a federal State in order to prevent either the legislature of a federal unit or those of the member States, from destroying or impairing that delicate balance of power which satisfies the particular requirements of States which are desirous of union, but not prepared to merge their individuality in a unity. This supremacy of the constitution is protected by the authority of an independent judicial body to act as 'the interpreter of a scheme of distribution of powers'.

In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the supremacy of the court is distinct from the supremacy of the constitution, which has been considered as a feature of federal constitution, and therefore the option 'Supremacy of the Court', not being a feature of the federal constitution is also a correct answer; and since there is an ambiguity in the options, he is entitled to have the benefit of the said ambiguity and be awarded 2 Marks which will also qualify him in the (UGC)-NET Examinations, 2026.

Per contra, Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-Commission has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, and has relied upon Para-20, to contend that it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission has made assessment; and moresoever in the absence of any statutory provision for revaluation, the Court cannot direct any further revaluation i.e. for the second time. The Apex Court has also considered the decision in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth; reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance in the case of Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, on the scope of judicial review.

This Court is conscious of the fact that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of an Expert and since the rules which permitted the revaluation of the answer key, the petitioner has already availed the benefit of the same and now the Expert has also given its opinion regarding his objection, this Court does not find it appropriate to further dwell into the question further. However, the Court appreciates the effort which has been made by the petitioner who has appeared in person, to put another prospective to the inclusiveness of the 'Authority of the Court' , whether being part of the federal constitution or not; and though this Court has disagreed with his arguments, so as to exclude the 'Authority of the Court', as a feature of the federal constitution; but the court appreciates the efforts of the petitioner and wish him well for his future endeavours and hope he pursue his career in law.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to given any relief, in the circumstances, that the court is of the opinion that 'Supremacy of the Court', cannot be said to be not a feature of the federal constitution, as argued by the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be given to the petitioner in the present case and accordingly, the present writ petition is consigned to records.