Allahabad High Court

12. This Court has gone through the order challenged before it. It is trite law that in matter relating to examinations, the correctness of the answers given by the candidates when challenged, ought not to be entertained by the Courts as the Courts lack expertises to assess academic matters. This is consistent law that has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts.

13. Unwarily entering into aspects of examination and re- evaluation is undesirable as Courts have limited expertises and or no expertises at all depending upon nature of the subject matter before it. Either ways, it would not be safe for the Courts to supplant their views for that of experts. Such issues must be left to the wisdom of the expert committee which is constituted to examine the answers which are challenged before the Court and the Courts must necessarily accept the views of the expert committee as correct else, litigations relating to examinations, when challenged, would never receive a quietus. The views 4 SPLAD No. 982 of 2025 expressed by learned Single Bench are germane and accordance with the established law.

14. Under the circumstances, this Court does not feel any necessity to interfere with well reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. As the petitioner is a student of 2nd year law and as is reflected in the order challenged before us that she is a chronic litigant, who keeps up approaching the Court time and again, undoubtedly, costs must be imposed to deter her from such frivolous litigation in future. However, this Court feels that instead of Rs.20,000/- a cost of Rs.10,000/- will suffice and should be adequate to deter the petitioner from further frivolous litigations.

15. With the above, the special appeal stands disposed of as dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.) November 18, 2025 Shubham Arya/rkg

12. This Court has gone through the order challenged before it. It is trite law that in matter relating to examinations, the correctness of the answers given by the candidates when challenged, ought not to be entertained by the Courts as the Courts lack expertises to assess academic matters. This is consistent law that has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts.

13. Unwarily entering into aspects of examination and re- evaluation is undesirable as Courts have limited expertises and or no expertises at all depending upon nature of the subject matter before it. Either ways, it would not be safe for the Courts to supplant their views for that of experts. Such issues must be left to the wisdom of the expert committee which is constituted to examine the answers which are challenged before the Court and the Courts must necessarily accept the views of the expert committee as correct else, litigations relating to examinations, when challenged, would never receive a quietus. The views 4 SPLAD No. 982 of 2025 expressed by learned Single Bench are germane and accordance with the established law.

14. Under the circumstances, this Court does not feel any necessity to interfere with well reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. As the petitioner is a student of 2nd year law and as is reflected in the order challenged before us that she is a chronic litigant, who keeps up approaching the Court time and again, undoubtedly, costs must be imposed to deter her from such frivolous litigation in future. However, this Court feels that instead of Rs.20,000/- a cost of Rs.10,000/- will suffice and should be adequate to deter the petitioner from further frivolous litigations.

15. With the above, the special appeal stands disposed of as dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.) November 18, 2025 Shubham Arya/rkg