Delhi HC Seeks Response on Plea Alleging Marks Tampering in Judicial Services Exam

In a case raising serious concerns about the integrity and transparency of competitive judicial examinations, a candidate for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination (DJSE) 2023, Meenakshi Meena, has filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court alleging unauthorised tampering and alteration of her answer sheet marks in the Civil Law-I paper of the Mains (Written) exam.

Meena, a law graduate from Gujarat National Law University and an LLM from NLU Delhi, appeared in the DJSE Mains Examination held on April 13–14, 2024. While she secured an aggregate of 422 out of 850 marks — comfortably above the 45% aggregate cut-off required for Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates — she was declared ineligible for the viva voce round due to scoring only 68 marks in Paper 2 (Civil Law-I), falling two marks short of the mandatory 35% per paper requirement.

However, through an RTI application filed on March 20, 2025, Meena obtained copies of her evaluated answer sheets, which revealed that her score for Question No. 8 in Civil Law-I was allegedly altered from ‘5’ to ‘3’. This revision, she claims, was done without any signature or initials from the examiner, violating basic norms of exam integrity and accountability. The total on the front sheet of her answer script was similarly modified from 70 to 68, without any formal authentication.

Despite submitting a detailed representation to the Examination Committee on April 22, 2025, highlighting this “palpable error,” Meena received no response, compelling her to approach the High Court through a writ petition filed on May 8, 2025.

In her petition, Meena contends that the alteration constitutes tampering, not a legitimate revision, since it lacks examiner endorsement — a key procedural safeguard. She relies on precedent from the Delhi High Court (notably Nirmala Singh v. High Court of Delhi) where the presence of examiner initials was deemed essential for validating post-evaluation changes.

The petition seeks the restoration of her originally awarded 70 marks in Civil Law-I, which would qualify her for the viva voce and potentially place her in the final merit list. Additionally, she has urged the court to frame judicial guidelines on evaluation procedures to prevent similar discrepancies in the future.

“The absence of any endorsement or signature on the altered marks is a serious procedural lapse. This is not just about two marks; it’s about the sanctity of a candidate’s hard work and the credibility of the system,” said Ananya Sikri, counsel for the petitioner.

The matter is expected to be heard in the coming days. The outcome could have far-reaching implications not just for Meenakshi Meena, but for the standards of transparency and fairness in judicial recruitment across the country.

The petition was argued by Advocate Nitesh Mehra, briefed by Ananya Sikri and Hitaakshi Mehra.