Supreme Court Holds Ambiguous MCQ with Multiple Correct Answers Requires Equitable Relief Through Supernumerary Appointment

Case Name: Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 248
Date of Judgment/Order: 17 March 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Held: The Supreme Court held that where a multiple-choice question in a competitive examination is ambiguous and capable of more than one legally sustainable answer, candidates choosing either interpretation should not be penalised, and equitable relief must be granted to avoid injustice, including by accommodating affected candidates through creation of supernumerary posts.

Summary: The dispute arose from a recruitment examination for the post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, where a question regarding immunity of the Ninth Schedule from judicial review led to divergent answers. The recruiting body treated “Ninth Schedule” as the correct answer, while the writ petitioner contended that “None of the above” was correct in light of evolving constitutional jurisprudence, particularly post I.R. Coelho. The Single Judge upheld the recruiting authority’s answer, whereas the Division Bench held that the writ petitioner’s answer was correct and directed revision of marks, which would displace the selected candidate. Before the Supreme Court, the Court examined the constitutional complexity underlying the question and observed that even High Court judges had differed in their interpretation. It held that expecting law graduates to conclusively resolve such nuanced constitutional issues in an objective test was unreasonable. The Court found that both answers could be justified depending on the level of analysis—textual versus doctrinal—and therefore the question was inherently ambiguous.

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to accommodate both the appellant and the writ petitioner by creating a supernumerary post for the latter, while protecting the seniority of the originally selected candidate, thereby ensuring equitable resolution without disturbing existing appointments.