Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Liya Joy – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15875 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Sujin, Nita.N.S., T.N.Girija, Vinitha B., Pooja Surendran, N.Bharat, Arjun Babu C.S., Renu B Raj, Thressy Thomas
For the Respondents: K.Shri Hari Rao, P.Sreekumar, Sanjana R.Nair
Legal provisions and rules are deemed to incorporate all amendments existing as of the date of their application, and a reference to such rules inherently includes these amendments without the explicit necessity of labeling them as 'amended'.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a question in the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination, 2026, alleging it was defective for failing to explicitly mention a 2025 amendment to the governing rules. The petitioner argued that the question referred to the 2022 Rules without noting the 2025 modifications regarding submission timelines. Consequently, the petitioner sought a declaration to award marks and a direction to participate in the viva voce examination. The court addressed the issue of whether a specific reference to an amendment is necessary when citing a statute or rule. The ratio decidendi established that statutes and rules are to be read as containing all amendments enacted up to the date of reference. The court noted that there is no requirement to append phrases like “as amended” to indicate that a provision reflects the latest legal position. The writ petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to examination question based on alleged omission of amendment reference. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner barred by estoppel for failing to attempt the specific question. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. rules are presumed to incorporate all amendments until the material date. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges the answer key for one of the questions in the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination, 2026. The petitioner seeks to quash the answer to question No.39 and also to declare that the said question was defective and further to direct the respondents to award marks to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to permit her to participate in the viva voce examination provisionally and to revise her results accordingly.
2. The petitioner was a candidate for the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination, 2026 for obtaining licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. Pursuant to her application, she was permitted to write the examination scheduled to be held on 17.03.2026. One of the questions in the said examination, i.e., question No.39 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition as, according to the petitioner, the said question itself was defective, and hence it ought to have been deleted from consideration.
3. The petitioner alleges that the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specified End Use) Rules, 2022 had undergone an amendment in 2025. As per the said amendment, the annual statement has to be submitted every quarter, in the common portal in Form IGCR-3. Prior to the amendment of 2025, the annual statement ought to have been submitted monthly, in Form IGCR-3. The petitioner alleges that, question No.39 never referred or mentioned about the Amendment of 2025 but contained the long title of the Rules as “Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specified End Use) Rules 2025. In the absence of any indication that the question referred to the rules as amended in 2025, petitioner alleges that the said question was defective and hence cannot be reckoned for the purpose of evaluating the petitioner and other candidates.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3, inter alia pointing out that the answer key, which is produced as Ext.P9 mentions in Sl.No.7 that the correct answer which is based on the amended Rule of 2025 was 'quarterly statement on the common portal in Form IGCR-3'. It is also pleaded that the petitioner had not even attempted to answer question No.39 at the examination and therefore, she cannot later turn around and question the alleged defect in question No.39.
5. I have heard Smt.Vinitha B., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sanjana R.Nair, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
6. For the purpose of easier comprehension, Question No.39 along with its answers are extracted below:-
Question No.39 “(A) annual statement on common portal in form IGCR-4 (B) monthly statement on common portal in form IGCR-2 (C) half-yearly statement on common portal in form IGCR-1 (D) quarterly statement on common portal in form IGCR-3 (Correct Alternative)”
7. The answer key provides (D) as the correct answer to the question. Petitioner had not even attempted to answer this question. Hence she is estopped from challenging it.
Still the merits of the challenges are considered.
8. It is elementary that, when a rule undergoes an amendment, without any change to the long title of the Rule, the amendment will stand incorporated into the rules and it will always be known by the long title as originally specified. Whenever any reference is made to the rules, the amendment having already been incorporated, need not be specifically mentioned “as amended”. This principle of interpretation cannot be ignored, even in respect of a question in an examination. Question No.39 which mentioned Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specified End Use) Rules 2022, can o
