Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh 2026 INSC 248 - Law Officer Exam
Summary: The case arose from a recruitment exam for a single post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, where Question 73 asked which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review for violation of fundamental rights, and the recruiting body treated “Ninth Schedule” as the only correct answer, penalising the candidate who chose “None of the above.” The Single Judge upheld the recruiting body’s key as consistent with Article 31B and prior case law, but the Division Bench held, relying on I.R. Coelho and the basic structure doctrine, that no Schedule (including the Ninth) is absolutely immune, so “None of the above” was also a correct answer and that the candidate’s marks had been wrongly reduced. The Supreme Court, noting that even High Court judges differed on the correct option and that both answers were sustainable in law, directed the Municipal Corporation to accommodate both candidates by creating a supernumerary post, with the originally appointed appellant retaining seniority.
Case Info
Extracted Information
Case name and neutral citation:Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors., 2026 INSC 248 (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 2026, arising out of SLP (C) No. 16533/2025).
Coram:Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra (judgment authored by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.)
Judgment date:17 March 2026 (New Delhi)
Case laws and citations referred
- Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar, 1951 SCC 966 : (1952) SCR 89
- Sajjan Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25 : AIR 1965 SC 845
- C. Golak Nath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 14 : (1967) 2 SCR 762
- His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another, (1973) 4 SCC 225
- I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1
- Vikas Pratap Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 494
Statutes / constitutional provisions referred
The judgment primarily concerns the Constitution of India, especially:
- Article 31B (immunity to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule)
- Ninth Schedule (immunity and limits via basic structure test)
- Fundamental Rights and the basic structure doctrine under Article 141 (binding nature of Supreme Court judgments is expressly mentioned).
Brief Summary (Three Sentences)
The case arose from a recruitment exam for a single post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, where Question 73 asked which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review for violation of fundamental rights, and the recruiting body treated “Ninth Schedule” as the only correct answer, penalising the candidate who chose “None of the above.” The Single Judge upheld the recruiting body’s key as consistent with Article 31B and prior case law, but the Division Bench held, relying on I.R. Coelho and the basic structure doctrine, that no Schedule (including the Ninth) is absolutely immune, so “None of the above” was also a correct answer and that the candidate’s marks had been wrongly reduced. The Supreme Court, noting that even High Court judges differed on the correct option and that both answers were sustainable in law, directed the Municipal Corporation to accommodate both candidates by creating a supernumerary post, with the originally appointed appellant retaining seniority.
