Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) common mistakes
Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a civil-law answer that states the correct statutory provision but never applies it to the facts, leaving the conclusion unsupported.
Candidates memorise sections and treat the exam as a recall test, so under time pressure they reproduce the rule and assume the examiner will infer the application.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-step template for every answer: (1) identify the issue, (2) state the rule with the exact section and a leading case, (3) apply it to the given facts in two or three sentences before concluding. Practise by writing ten answers where the application paragraph is mandatory, and self-mark by counting whether each answer contains a sentence beginning 'In the present facts...'.
Citing the correct case name but attributing the wrong ratio, or citing a case that supports the opposite proposition.
Candidates learn case names from short summaries and never read the operative paragraphs, so the name is retained while the holding drifts.
What to do instead
Maintain a one-line ratio card for every leading case you intend to cite, written in your own words with the bench strength and year. Before the exam, test yourself by covering the ratio and reciting it from the name alone; discard any case whose ratio you cannot state in one sentence without hesitation.
Mixing up the limitation periods and the Article/Order under which a civil remedy is sought, for example confusing Order XXXIX temporary injunction with Order XXXVIII attachment before judgment, or Section 5 with Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act are studied as separate lists of numbers, and the exam deliberately places similar-sounding provisions side by side.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table with columns for remedy, governing provision, limitation period, and court fee. Revise it by covering one column at a time. For every wrong answer in a mock, write the correct row out by hand; the act of reconstructing the table fixes the pairing better than re-reading.
Answering a criminal-law question on a general exception or a specific offence without identifying which ingredient of the offence is missing or satisfied on the facts.
Candidates recite the definition of the offence from memory and then assert guilt or innocence, skipping the element-by-element analysis that the question is designed to test.
What to do instead
For every offence, memorise the ingredients as a numbered checklist (for example, for cheating: deception, dishonest inducement, delivery of property, and intent). In the answer, tick each ingredient against the facts expressly, and for a general exception, state the burden and the standard of proof before applying it.
Confusing the burden of proof under the Evidence Act with the burden under the general exceptions, and asserting that the accused must prove an exception beyond reasonable doubt.
The phrases 'burden of proof' and 'proved' are used loosely in study material, and candidates do not distinguish the legal burden on the prosecution from the evidential burden on the accused.
What to do instead
Write a short note distinguishing Section 101 to Section 104 with Section 105 and Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and pair it with the standard laid down for general exceptions. In every mock answer involving an exception, add one sentence stating who bears the burden and to what standard; make that sentence non-negotiable.
Ignoring procedural criminal law in favour of substantive offences, so questions on bail, remand, framing of charge, or compounding are answered from general impression rather than from the Code.
Substantive offences feel more examinable, so the Code of Criminal Procedure is revised last and thinly, and candidates rely on what they have seen in practice rather than on the provision.
What to do instead
Allocate fixed revision slots to the procedural Code, organised by stage of the case: investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision. For each stage, learn the governing section, the time limit, and the remedy for breach. Answer procedural questions by naming the section first and the practice second.
In the English paper, writing a long and ornate essay or precis that exceeds the word limit and buries the required content, or copying whole sentences from the passage in a precis.
Candidates believe length signals effort, and under precis questions they lift phrases because it feels safer than paraphrasing.
What to do instead
Practise against a hard word count with a visible timer: write the precis in one-third of the original length, then cut it by another ten per cent. For essays, draft a three-line outline before writing and check the final count. Mark your own precis by underlining every phrase copied verbatim from the passage and rewriting each one.
Making grammar and usage errors in the English paper that change meaning, such as mismatched subject and verb, dangling modifiers, or wrong prepositions in legal collocations.
Candidates read legal English daily and absorb its style without studying usage rules, so errors that are common in drafting go unnoticed in their own writing.
What to do instead
Keep a personal error log from every practice paper, recording the rule rather than the sentence. Revise the log weekly and re-test only the logged items. Learn legal collocations as pairs (for example, 'preferred against', 'liable to', 'jurisdiction over') rather than as single words.
Preparing General Knowledge and Current Affairs only from a static compendium, so questions on recent judgments, amendments, and appointments are answered from outdated information.
The syllabus looks static, and candidates underestimate how much of the current-affairs paper is drawn from the twelve months before the examination.
What to do instead
Maintain a dated one-page monthly log of legal current affairs: Supreme Court Constitution Bench decisions, significant amendments, new appointments to constitutional offices, and reports of the Law Commission. Revise the log in reverse chronological order in the final month, and verify each entry against a primary source rather than a secondary summary.
Misallocating time across the papers, spending too long on one long essay or one difficult civil-law problem and leaving later questions unattempted or answered in note form.
Candidates rehearse content but never rehearse the paper as a timed exercise, so they discover the time pressure only in the examination hall.
What to do instead
Take at least three full-length mocks under exam conditions with a clock visible, and fix a per-question time budget in advance (for example, minutes equal to the marks allotted). Enforce a rule that any question exceeding its budget by fifty per cent is left with a skeleton answer and returned to only after the whole paper is attempted.