Archive · 28 Sep 2026
Jaymin Patel’s UPSC Answer-Key Fight Reaches Supreme Court
Jaymin Patel wanted to join India’s Forest Service through a difficult government examination.
He missed the 2024 preliminary test by just 2.06 marks.
He believed one question about the Union Budget had been graded incorrectly.
Patel challenged the Union Public Service Commission in court.
The Gujarat High Court said his answer appeared to be supported by the Constitution and allowed him to take the next written examination temporarily.
The Supreme Court did not stop that order because the examination was about to begin.
Patel passed the written stage and attended the interview, but he was not selected.
UPSC says it did not make a mistake and opposed giving him special treatment.
His case has encouraged other candidates to challenge disputed examination answers.
Jaymin Patel missed the 2024 Indian Forest Service prelims by 2.06 marks after choosing an answer disputed by the Union Public Service Commission.
The Gujarat High Court found that the Constitution supported Patel’s answer and ordered UPSC to let him sit the 2025 Mains as an interim measure.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere shortly before the Mains, allowing Patel to take the examination.
Patel later cleared the written stage and attended the interview but was not recommended for selection; he is seeking access to his marks and answer sheets.
UPSC maintains that its answer was not wrong and warns that court intervention could affect examination integrity and encourage similar claims.
- Who
- Jaymin Patel, the Union Public Service Commission, the Gujarat High Court, and the Supreme Court of India.
- What
- A legal challenge over a disputed UPSC preliminary-examination answer and Patel’s resulting opportunity to sit the subsequent Mains examination.
- When
- The dispute followed the 2024 prelims; key court proceedings occurred in 2025, including immediately before the November 2025 Mains.
- Where
- The case moved between the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court of India; Patel also stayed in Delhi while pursuing it.
- Why
- Patel said an incorrect answer key caused him to miss the cutoff by 2.06 marks, while UPSC denied that its answer was wrong.
Patel and other candidates
Union Public Service Commission
Correctness of the answer key
Patel and other candidates
Patel argued that option B was correct because the Constitution says the Annual Financial Statement is laid before Parliament on behalf of the President, not the Prime Minister.
Union Public Service Commission
UPSC maintains that its answer was not wrong and has not accepted the disputed answer as erroneous.
Court intervention
Patel and other candidates
Patel argued that an incorrect evaluation deprived him of a fair chance to sit the Mains, especially because the final answer key was released only after the examination process ended.
Union Public Service Commission
UPSC opposed relief, arguing that the examination process had already concluded and that allowing such claims could open the floodgates to similar applications.
Examination integrity
Patel and other candidates
Candidates say court-ordered opportunities are necessary when a disputed question may have changed eligibility and left them with no practical remedy.
Union Public Service Commission
The Supreme Court acknowledged that such directions could affect the conduct and integrity of examinations, while declining to interfere because the Mains was imminent.
- Candidate
- Jaymin Patel, a 31-year-old Deputy Collector in Gandhinagar
- Disputed margin
- Patel missed the 2024 Indian Forest Service prelims by 2.06 marks
- Disputed question
- A question asked whether two statements about the Union Budget were correct
- Patel’s answer
- He selected option B, identifying statement 2 only as correct
- High Court order
- The Gujarat High Court directed UPSC to allow Patel to sit the 2025 Mains as an interim measure
- Supreme Court action
- On 14 November 2025, the Supreme Court declined to interfere before the Mains
- Outcome
- Patel cleared the written stage and attended the interview but was not recommended for selection
- Reported expenses
- Patel said the case consumed four months of leave and about Rs 7 lakh