Hardeep v. University of Delhi & Ors.

1. The petitioner, who is a student of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi is unhappy with the marks awarded to him in the papers bearing Paper Code LB-401, LB-604, LB-4036 and LB-603. In paper code LB-401 (Constitutional Law-II), the petitioner is aggrieved by the marks awarded to him against the answers in response to questions (1), (2), (3), (4) and (7); in paper code LB-4036 (Intellectual Property Rights Law-I), the petitioner is unhappy with the marks awarded against the answers to questions (1), (2) and (4) and, in paper code LB-603 (Environmental Law), the petitioner is aggrieved by the marks awarded in respect of the answers to questions (2), (4) and (7).

2. The grievance of the petitioner with respect to paper code LB- 604 (Principles of Taxation Law), is somewhat different in complexion and would be dealt with separately.

3. The questions in paper code LB-401, LB-4036 and LB-603, which forms subject matter of the petitioner’s grievance, may be reproduced thus: LB 401

enable Parliament to abrogate or take away, fundamental rights or to completely change the fundamental features of the Constitution so as to destroy its identity. Within these limits Parliament can amend every article.” In the light of the above statement discuss the methodology used by the Supreme Court to identify the basic features of the Indian Constitution. Can a law not included in ninth schedule be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it violates doctrine of basic structure?

4. Discuss the scope of Article 19(1)(a) vis-à-vis broadcasting and the role of the government in controlling it.

7. Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution deals with freedom of religion. How these two article differ in their operation? Has the Judiciary in the name of interpreting these article become clergy? Provide sound reasons for your answer.” LB-4036

4. Mr. Mandy is selling readymade garments under the brand name ‘MONOGINIS’ worldwide. They are the largest retailer in America and fourth largest in the world. With network of around 5000 stores in about 25 countries of the world, realizing the potential in Indian market Mr. Mandy launched its operation here in 2019 and want to get ‘MONOGINIS’ to be declared a wellknown trademark. Citing the relevant provisions of law and decided cases, discuss the concept of well known trademarks under the Trademarks Act, 1999 and also state factors which are irrelevant to determine a trademark as well-known trademarks.” LB-603

4. A glance at the above questions would reveal that they are subjective type in nature and they call for detailed and comprehensive responses from the student. The marks awarded against the answers provided in response to such questions are, therefore, a matter of subjective discretion of the examiner. Such questions cannot be likened to objective type or multiple choice questions in which there can be only one specific answer to a question and the Court therefore, is in a position to assess whether a correctly answered question has not been awarded the marks it deserves.

5. The questions forming subject matter of the petitioner’s grievance in paper code LB-401 (Constitutional Law-II), LB-4036 (IP Rights Law-I) and LB-603 (Environmental Law) are questions calling for detailed answers and, therefore, if the examiner did not deem the answer provided by way of response to the question sufficient to warrant more than the marks that he awarded against the said answers, the Court must defer to the wisdom of the examiner. It would be improper for the Court to sit in judicial review, much less appeal, over the examiner’s decision.

6. The submission that, having put tick marks against the answers given by the petitioners, the examiner could not have awarded such low marks, cannot muster acceptance. As noted, these are subjective type questions, demanding detailed answers by way of response. Even if what has been written by the student may be correct, as is manifested by the “tick marks”, it may not be detailed or comprehensive enough, thereby resulting in its being awarded lower marks. These are, at the end of the day, all matters of conjecture, and, in the absence of clear proof of mala fides, the court cannot substitute its wisdom for that of the examiner.

7. It would not, in fact, in my opinion, be erroneous, as a proposition of law, to state that, where the questions are subjective, calling for detailed answers, as opposed to objective type questions, the possibility of judicial review over the marks awarded by the examiner is almost totally foreclosed.

8. As regards paper code LB-604 (Principles of Taxation Law), Mr. Brajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examiner did not make any marking in the entire paper, on the basis of which the petitioner could be made aware as to the errors or omissions on his part. Without making any marking in the paper, the petitioner was awarded far less than the maximum marks which five questions, which he attempted, carried.