CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH Supreme Court judgment on Ninth Schedule immunity

CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH Supreme Court judgment on Ninth Schedule immunity

Meta: CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH — Supreme Court judgment on Ninth Schedule immunity in a recruitment exam; court ordered a supernumerary post to accommodate both candidates.

INTRODUCTION

CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH is a Supreme Court judgment concerning whether any Schedule of the Constitution, including the Ninth Schedule, is immune from judicial review on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. The dispute arose from a recruitment examination question. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to create a supernumerary post and appoint the third respondent while treating the appellant as senior; the appeal was disposed of in these terms.

QUICK FACT BOX

Case name: CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH

Citation: 2026 INSC 248

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16533/2025)

Date of judgment: March 17, 2026

Judges: Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra

Outcome: Municipal Corporation directed to create a supernumerary post; appeal disposed

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Parties involved: Appellant Charan Preet Singh; Respondents include Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and third respondent Amit Kumar Sharma.

Events leading to litigation: The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh issued an advertisement for various posts including one post of Law Officer, to be selected by a written multiple-choice test of 100 questions with negative marking. Question No.73 asked which Schedule is immune from judicial review on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, with options including Ninth Schedule and None of the above.

The appellant and the third respondent both contested for the post. The third respondent answered option 'D' (None of the above). The recruiting body marked option 'B' (Ninth Schedule) as correct and reduced the third respondent's score by 1.25 marks for the allegedly wrong answer, altering his merit ranking.

Lower court outcome: The learned Single Judge dismissed the third respondent's writ petition seeking correction of answer. On intra-court appeal, the Division Bench allowed the third respondent and held option 'D' to be legally correct; the Division Bench directed reconsideration which would affect the appellant's selection. The present appeal challenges the Division Bench order.

LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

The main question before the Court was: whether any Schedule of the Constitution, including the Ninth Schedule, is immune from judicial review merely on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, as posed in Question No.73 of the recruitment examination.

SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS

The Court recorded that the learned Single Judge relied on Article 31B and earlier decisions including Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, Sajjan Singh, C. Golak Nath, Kesavananda Bharati, and I.R. Coelho to hold that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule enjoy immunity from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, subject to tests developed in subsequent decisions.

The Division Bench had referred to paragraph 148 of I.R. Coelho and held that immunities granted by Article 31B are not absolute and are subject to the basic structure test; the Division Bench found option 'D' to be legally correct.

The Supreme Court observed that the issue involved interpretation of several of this Court's decisions over decades and that law graduates taking a multiple-choice recruitment test could reasonably find either answer supportable.

The Court recorded that option 'B' (Ninth Schedule) appears more appropriate from the language of the question, but on deeper analysis of the cited precedents, option 'D' (None of the above) can also be considered correct as held by the Division Bench.

The Court noted that deduction of 1.25 marks materially altered the third respondent's merit ranking and deprived him of fair consideration for selection.

FINAL VERDICT

The Appeal is disposed of by directing the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to create a supernumerary post and appoint the third respondent (Amit Kumar Sharma) as well.

Upon appointment of the third respondent, the appellant (Charan Preet Singh), who had already joined and was working on the post, will be treated as senior.

The Appeal is disposed of in the above stated terms.

WHY THIS JUDGMENT MATTERS

The judgment does not explicitly state broader implications.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court in CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH directed creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate both the appellant and the third respondent and disposed of the appeal. The Court recognized that both the Ninth Schedule and 'None of the above' answers could be reasonably supported on the law cited in the record.