Charan Preet Singhv.Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of India on March 17, 2026, arises from a civil appeal challenging the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a recruitment dispute. The core controversy revolved around a single multiple-choice question in an examination for the post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The question asked which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights. The official answer key marked Option B (Ninth Schedule) as correct. The respondent candidate, who marked Option D (None of the above), challenged this, arguing that after the landmark judgment in I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., laws in the Ninth Schedule are not absolutely immune and are subject to the basic structure doctrine. The Single Judge upheld the official answer, but the Division Bench reversed it, holding Option D to be correct. The Supreme Court, faced with a divergence of opinion among High Court judges on a complex constitutional question, did not definitively rule on the legal correctness of either answer. Instead, it adopted a pragmatic and equitable solution, directing the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate both candidates, thereby resolving the dispute without penalizing either for a genuinely debatable question.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 248

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 16533 of 2025)

Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Nature of Bench: Single Judge Bench

Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026

2. Legal Framework and Relevant Provisions

• Constitutional Provisions:
  Article 31B: Validation of certain Acts and Regulations included in the Ninth Schedule. It provides that none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule shall be deemed to be void on the ground that they are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights.
  Ninth Schedule: A list of central and state laws which are protected from judicial review on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, by virtue of Article 31B.
  Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights to be void.

• Key Precedents Relied Upon (The Constitutional Journey of the Ninth Schedule):
  Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India 1951: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 31B, establishing that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are immune from challenge on the ground of fundamental rights violation.
  Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1965: Reaffirmed the validity of Article 31B and the immunity granted to Ninth Schedule laws.
  I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 1967: Overruled the earlier decisions and held that Parliament cannot take away fundamental rights, declaring Article 31B prospectively invalid. This created uncertainty.
  Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973: Overruled Golak Nath and upheld the validity of Article 31B, but introduced the "basic structure" doctrine as a limitation on the amending power of Parliament. The immunity of Ninth Schedule laws was thus restored, but now subject to the overarching principle that they cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
  I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs v. State of T.N. (2007) 2 SCC 1: The most significant precedent for this case. The Court held that while Article 31B grants immunity to laws in the Ninth Schedule, this immunity is not absolute. Such laws are not exempt from judicial review on the touchstone of the basic structure doctrine. If a law placed in the Ninth Schedule violates a fundamental right which is part of the basic structure, it can be struck down. The "direct impact and effect" test was established to determine if the basic structure is violated.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

• The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, issued an advertisement for the post of Law Officer. Selection was based on a written test with 100 multiple-choice questions. There was negative marking of 1/4th mark for each wrong answer.

• The appellant (Charan Preet Singh) and respondent No. 3 (Amit Kumar Sharma) were candidates. A dispute arose concerning Question No. 73:"Which of the following schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?
  A) Seventh Schedule
  B) Ninth Schedule
  C) Tenth Schedule
  D) None of the above"

• The official answer key marked Option B (Ninth Schedule) as correct. Respondent No. 3 had marked Option D (None of the above). Consequently, his answer was treated as wrong, leading to a loss of 1.25 marks (1 mark for the wrong answer + 0.25 negative marking). This affected his merit ranking.

• Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition (CWP No. 1007 of 2022). The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that Option B was correct. The Single Judge's reasoning was based on the continued existence of Article 31B, its validation in Kesavananda Bharati, and the fact that while I.R. Coelho introduced the basic structure test, it did not completely remove immunity; violation of fundamental rights per se is not the sole test, as the impact on basic structure must be considered.

• Respondent No. 3 filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 286-2022). The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's decision. It relied on paragraph 148 of I.R. Coelho to hold that the immunities under Article 31B are not absolute and are subject to the basic structure test. Therefore, it was incorrect to state categorically that the Ninth Schedule is immune from judicial review merely on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. Option D was held to be legally correct.

• The Division Bench also relied on Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh to suggest the creation of a supernumerary post to balance equities.

• Aggrieved, the selected candidate (Charan Preet Singh) appealed to the Supreme Court.

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether, in light of the constitutional history and the binding precedent of I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., Option B (Ninth Schedule) or Option D (None of the above) is the correct answer to Question No. 73 in the recruitment examination?

• What is the appropriate remedy in a situation where a complex constitutional question has led to divergent opinions even among High Court judges, and where penalizing a candidate with a negative mark may result in injustice?

5. Ratio Decidendi of the Court

The Supreme Court did not definitively rule on which of the two options was legally correct. Instead, it adopted a pragmatic, equitable, and problem-solving approach. The key findings and directions are as follows:

• Question Was Too Complex for a Multiple-Choice Format: The Court observed that the question involved a nuanced and evolved constitutional principle, tracing its journey through five landmark Supreme Court judgments (Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, Golak Nath, Kesavananda Bharati, and I.R. Coelho). When judges of a High Court can legitimately differ in their interpretation of such a question, it is "least expected from mere law graduates" to definitively arrive at the "correct" answer in a multiple-choice format. The question was inherently ambiguous for the purposes of a competitive exam.

• Both Answers Are Plausible from a Candidate's Perspective: The Court acknowledged that from the viewpoint of a law graduate preparing for an exam, both answers could be considered correct based on a surface-level understanding of the law. While Option B might appear more appropriate based on a literal reading of Article 31B, a deeper analysis, as conducted by the Division Bench, could also lead to Option D being considered correct.

• No Penalty for a Genuinely Ambiguous Question: The core principle applied was that a candidate should not be penalized for answering a question in a way that finds support in a plausible interpretation of the law, especially when the question itself is the subject of judicial debate.

• Equitable Remedy Under Article 142: To do complete justice and resolve the long-standing dispute, the Court invoked its inherent power to pass equitable orders. It directed the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate both candidates. This solution balances the rights of both parties: the appellant, who was selected based on the official key, retains his position; and the respondent, whose answer was arguably correct, is not deprived of his chance at employment.

• Disposal, Not Adjudication: The Court explicitly did not settle the constitutional debate. It disposed of the appeal by providing a pragmatic solution, leaving the legal question open for academic or future judicial consideration if necessary.

6. Legal Framework Established / Clarified

This judgment does not establish new constitutional law but provides a significant clarification on the administration of justice in recruitment disputes:

• Principle of Equitable Remedy for Ambiguous Exam Questions: The judgment establishes a crucial precedent for dealing with disputes arising from ambiguous or overly complex questions in competitive examinations. It holds that if a question is so nuanced that it leads to a difference of opinion even among judicial minds, it is unfair to penalize a candidate for choosing one of several plausible interpretations.

• Creation of Supernumerary Posts as a Remedial Tool: The Court endorsed and applied the principle from Vikas Pratap Singh, affirming that the creation of a supernumerary post is a valid and equitable remedy to resolve disputes where a candidate's legitimate expectation has been affected by an ambiguous selection process, without displacing an existing appointee.

• Judicial Restraint in Constitutional Interpretation: The judgment demonstrates judicial restraint by refusing to definitively pronounce on a complex constitutional question in the context of a recruitment dispute where it was unnecessary to do so. It prioritized practical justice over theoretical legal debate.

7. Court's Examination and Analysis

The Supreme Court's analysis was concise and focused on the practical implications of the dispute:

• Acknowledging the Complexity: The Court began by recognizing the constitutional complexity inherent in Question No. 73. By listing the five landmark cases that define the current status of the Ninth Schedule, it implicitly validated the Division Bench's concern that a categorical statement of absolute immunity was an oversimplification.

• Highlighting the Judicial Divergence: The Court pointed to the fact that the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the same High Court had reached opposite conclusions. This divergence was not a sign of error by either bench but an indication of the question's genuine difficulty. The existence of this judicial disagreement was the central factual basis for the Court's decision.

• Applying a Standard of Fairness to Candidates: The Court assessed the situation from the perspective of a candidate. It reasoned that it would be unjust to expect a candidate to possess the level of constitutional expertise required to resolve a debate that had perplexed judges. Therefore, penalizing the respondent for his choice was inequitable.

• Choosing Pragmatism over Theoretical Correctness: Instead of entering the fray and declaring one judicial opinion as "correct" and the other as "incorrect," the Court opted for a solution that rendered the legal debate moot. By directing the creation of a supernumerary post, it provided a remedy that satisfied both parties without needing to resolve the underlying constitutional question.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

• Outcome: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal. It did not set aside the judgment of the Division Bench but modified its effect. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, to create a supernumerary post of Law Officer. Consequently, both the appellant (Charan Preet Singh) and respondent No. 3 (Amit Kumar Sharma) were to be accommodated and appointed to the post of Law Officer. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.

• Critical Perspectives:
  Strengths: The judgment is a masterclass in judicial pragmatism and equity. It wisely avoids the trap of trying to definitively answer a question that has legitimately divided judicial opinion, especially when such an answer would have significant consequences for the livelihood of a candidate. The solution is elegant, fair, and final. It upholds the rights of the appellant who was selected in good faith, while also remedying the potential injustice done to the respondent. It sets a powerful precedent for resolving similar disputes without protracted litigation.
  Recognition of the Limits of Objective Testing: The judgment implicitly acknowledges that complex legal or conceptual knowledge cannot always be fairly tested through a multiple-choice format with negative marking. This is a crucial insight for public service commissions and recruiting bodies.
  Fairness to Candidates: The decision is a victory for fundamental fairness. It recognizes that candidates should not be penalized for the inherent ambiguity of a question or for choosing an answer that a High Court bench later deemed correct. It prevents the "lottery" of an answer key from deciding a candidate's career.
  Potential Criticism: Strict constitutional purists might argue that the Court abdicated its duty to settle the law by not definitively ruling on the correctness of Option B vs. Option D. However, this criticism misses the point. The case was not about settling the law on the Ninth Schedule, which is already settled in I.R. Coelho. The case was about the fairness of a recruitment process. The Court's solution does not contradict I.R. Coelho; it simply acknowledges that a nuanced understanding of its implications might not be expected in a competitive exam. The Court's primary duty was to do justice between the parties, which it did.
  Guidance for Recruiting Bodies: The judgment sends a clear signal to recruiting agencies: questions that are subject to genuine legal debate, or that require a highly nuanced understanding of complex case law, are unsuitable for multiple-choice exams with negative marking. If such questions are included, they risk being struck down in court, and the recruiting body may be forced to adopt costly and administratively complex remedies like creating supernumerary posts.

• Core Final Directive: In recruitment examinations, if a multiple-choice question is so complex or ambiguous that it leads to divergent opinions even among judicial minds, it is inequitable to penalize a candidate for choosing an answer that finds support in a plausible interpretation of the law. To do complete justice and avoid penalizing a candidate for a genuinely debatable question, a court may direct the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate both the candidate who answered according to the official key and the candidate whose answer is found to be legally plausible, thereby resolving the dispute without definitively settling the underlying legal debate.

(MCQs)

1. The core dispute in Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh centered on the correct answer to a question about which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review for violating fundamental rights. The official answer key marked the correct answer as:?
A) Seventh Schedule
B) Ninth Schedule
C) Tenth Schedule
D) None of the above

2. The Division Bench of the High Court held that Option D ("None of the above") was correct, relying primarily on which landmark Supreme Court judgment?
A) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
B) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
C) I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N.
D) I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

3. The Supreme Court resolved the dispute without definitively ruling on the legal correctness of either answer. The final direction of the Court was to:?
A) Set aside the selection of the appellant.
B) Direct the Municipal Corporation to appoint the respondent in place of the appellant.
C) Direct the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate both candidates.
D) Order a re-examination with a revised question.

4. The Supreme Court's decision was based on the principle that:?
A) The Ninth Schedule is absolutely immune from judicial review.
B) The respondent's answer was definitively correct.
C) When a question is so complex that it leads to divergent opinions among judges, it is unfair to penalize a candidate for choosing a plausible answer.
D) Law graduates are expected to have a perfect understanding of all constitutional nuances.