On 12 June 2025, the Supreme Court of India exercised judicial restraint by refusing to halt the ongoing District Selection Committee (DSC) teacher recruitment examination process in Andhra Pradesh, in response to a petition filed under Article 32 by Posina Anand Sai, an ex-serviceman, who contended that the multi-day exam schedule employing different sets of question papers across various shifts created an unfair and non-uniform evaluation framework due to the lack of transparency in the normalization method applied to equate scores; the petitioner’s counsel, Charu Mathur, urged the Court to stay the examination citing a potential violation of the right to equality and fair opportunity for candidates appearing on different days, while Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, representing the State, argued that since lakhs of candidates had already appeared in the examination, any judicial interruption at this stage would create logistical chaos, undermine the interests of the majority, and harm the integrity of the recruitment process already in motion; the Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan noted that it was not appropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene in ongoing administrative processes or delve into the technical domain of exam normalization policies, especially when the competent High Court was expected to reopen after summer vacation on 16 June, reiterating the principle that challenges to procedural aspects of recruitment must be addressed first by the local High Court, which is better equipped to assess region-specific issues and administrative fairness, and further emphasized that courts must avoid micromanaging complex executive decisions like question paper design or score normalization, which fall under the expertise of examination authorities rather than the judiciary, and thus refused to grant a stay while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Andhra Pradesh High Court, reaffirming the balance courts must maintain between protecting individual rights and preserving the collective interest of a large number of candidates already subjected to the selection process, underscoring that mid-exam judicial interference should be the exception, not the norm, and procedural fairness must be examined through a broader lens of institutional integrity, transparency, and administrative feasibility without halting governance machinery unless grave and demonstrable constitutional violations are evident.