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

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

Income Tax Dept. Can’t Withhold Refunds In Mechanical And Routine Manner: Delhi High Court

[Statutory Bail] Bail Court Has No Jurisdiction To Go Into Merits Of The Case U/S 167(2) CrPC: Madras High Court

Amendment To Section 36(1)(va) Of Income Tax Act Is Prospective In Nature: Delhi High Court

Conviction Solely On The Basis Of Extra Judicial Confession Cannot Be Sustained: Supreme Court

Exporter Not Required To Hold IEC Number To Avail Benefits Under ‘Service Exports From India’ Scheme: Bombay High Court

Failure To Mention Blacklisting As A Probable Action Does Not Disable Tenderer From Blacklisting The Delinquent Bidder: J&K&L High Court

Section 311 CrPC Application Cannot Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground That It Will Lead To Filling In Loop Holes Of Prosecution Case: Supreme Court