Judges Cannot Be Experts In All Fields, Experts’ Opinion Cannot Be Supplanted By A Court Overstepping Its Jurisdiction

Case: National Board Of Examination V. Association Of Md Physicians

Coram: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case No.: LPA 225/2021

Court Observation: “If the error in the question is manifest and palpable, and does not require any elaborate argument, then the Writ court may choose to intervene. However, where the errors do not show their heads without a detailed and elaborate probe into the opinions of experts, the Court must stay its hands. It would not be prudent for a Court to conduct itself like an expert in a subject alien to it when an entire body of experts has arrived at a contradictory stand,”

“….Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction. It needs to be demonstrated by a candidate that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, and if there is any exercise conducted by the Court wherein the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken into consideration, that will inevitably amount to unwarranted interference on the part of the Court.”

“It is also not for the Courts to interfere in such matters, except in absolutely rare and exceptional cases, especially in view of the fact that the instant examination pertains to the practice of medicine – a field that requires the exercise of utmost care and caution,”

“Merely because other candidates faced confusion and were not aware of the answer cannot be a ground to deem ambiguity in the same.”

“Further, the key answers had been verified by experts at multiple levels, and by calling for a response from the RGI and then relying upon the same, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering in the examination and awarding one mark to all candidates who had chosen the incorrect answer.”

Previous Posts

Redness & Swelling In Vaginal Walls Sufficient To Show ‘Penetrative Sexual Assault’ Even Though Insertion Of Male Organ Not Alleged: Meghalaya HC

“Injustice To Divide A Well-Knitted Family”: Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Charges Against Man Accused Of Having ‘Consensual Sex’ With Minor Wife

In Absence Of Any Resistance Or Alarm It Cannot Be Said Victim Was Kidnapped: Calcutta High Court Acquits Two

Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed Over A ‘Dead Cause Of Action’ Barred By Law Of Limitation: Gujarat High Court

‘Projects Of National Importance’: Delhi HC Upholds DRDO Decision To Bar Entities With Pending Criminal Cases From Defence Contracts

Limitation Act: Sufficient Cause U/S 5 Of Must Be Liberally Constructed So As To Advance Substantive Justice: J&K&L High Court

Judges Cannot Be Experts In All Fields, Experts’ Opinion Cannot Be Supplanted By A Court Overstepping Its Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Suspicion However Strong Cannot Be Ground For Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

“Poor Illiterate Lady”, “Senior Citizen”,”Rural Background”: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Awarded To An NDPS Convict

Rule Of Evidence To Prove Charges In A Criminal Trial Cannot Be Used While Deciding Motor Accident Compensation Claims: Supreme Court