Aniruddha Panda vs The Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4409 Cal

20.7.2023
  ap
  50

                              WPA 15073 of 2023

                             Aniruddha Panda
                                   Vs.
                         The Union of India & Ors.

                        Mr. Pradip Kumar Mondal
                        Mr. Arka Mondal
                             ... For the petitioner.

                        Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay
                        Mr. Suman Dey
                             ... For the State.

                        Mr. Indranil Roy
                        Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy
                              ... For NMC.

                        Ms. Chandreyi Alam
                        Ms. Shaista Afreen
                             ... For Union of India.

                        Mr. U.S. Menon
                        Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty
                              ... For respondent no. 4.

Is it conceivable to achieve justice without

relying on human discretion? While artificial

intelligence has shown great potential in various

fields including the legal system, the present case at

hand provokes thoughts about the application of

artificial intelligence in the justice delivery system.

This is a unique case where despite perceiving

injustice due to application of a mechanical

evaluation process, this Court withholds its judicial

discretion, recognising that exercise of it could

potentially lead to even greater injustice.

The petitioner appeared for NEET UG - 2023

Examination and secured a rank of 3665 as a

General Category student. By filing this writ

petition the petitioner contends that despite

answering question no. 97 correctly, no mark has

been awarded to him for the said answer. The

petitioner asserts that had he been given marks

against the said answer he would have secured

much higher rank in the examination.

The petitioner draws the attention of this Court

to the relevant answer.

On perusal of the answer script it appears that

there are four options with four blank circles given

to a candidate against each question. A candidate

needs to select his answer by darkening the circle

using a ball pen.

In answering question number 97, the

petitioner has darkened the second circle

completely, while it also appears that he made an

attempt to darken the first circle.

Mr. Menon, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the National Testing Agency submits that

as per instruction issued by the National Testing

Agency the candidates were asked not to make any

stray marks on the answer sheet. He further

submits that the answer scripts are evaluated

mechanically by a scanner without any human

intervention. Since the petitioner has attempted to

fill up two circles against the instruction provided to

the candidates, his answer was treated to be

incorrect, resulting in the assignment of one

negative mark to him.

In support of his submission Mr. Menon has

relied upon a judgment delivered by Delhi High

Court in W.P. (C) 8858/2023 and CM Appl.

33495/2023 (Tarushi Gupta vs. Union of India &

Anr.)

The relevant answer script goes to suggest that

the petitioner tried to darken the first circle, but

realising the mistake, left it partly darkened and

thereafter completely darkened the second circle as

his ultimate option.

Though the Court is of the view that the

intention of the petitioner was only to opt for the

second choice, which was the right answer,

regrettably no relief can be given to the petitioner.

If the Court directs the National Testing Agency

to give marks for the answer given by the petitioner

using the judicial discretion, the same may lead to

injustice for other candidates who have made

similar inadvertent mistakes. During the mechanical

evaluation process, similar mistakes of other

candidates have been treated in the same manner.

Judicial discretion encompasses intuitive

judgement, enabling a Judge to adapt to unique

circumstances and make decisions based on

empathy and compassion. A mechanical process on

the other hand, relies on data-driven algorithms to

arrive at a logical conclusion. Human judgment is

essential for considering nuances, context and the

unique circumstances of each case that may not be

fully captured by algorithms. The petitioner should

accept the reality that while other candidates have

been evaluated mechanically, he cannot be given the

benefit of a judicial discretion.

Accordingly, WPA 15073 of 2023 is disposed

of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)