Karnataka High Court
Donthi Saatvik Reddy vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 23 August, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 16511 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN
DONTHI SAATVIK REDDY
S/O DONTHI SRINATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 118, 2 MAIN ROAD,
RAKESH FANTASY GARDEN,
ASTER 307, KASTURINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA.P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
NO.XG28 XF5, CHANDRA LAYOUT EXTN.,
II STAGE, GNANA BHARATHI MAIN ROAD,
NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU 560 072.
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER.
2. NEW BALDWIN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
SY.NO.128, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
MANDUR, BUDIGERE, BENGALURU 560 049,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION (CBSE)
COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR,
NEW DELHI 110 092.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANANDITHA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3 SRI. V. SURESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2) -2- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO STRIKE DOWN CATEGORY 3 (NEW) IN THE UNFAIR MEANS CATEGORIZATION GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CBSE AS PER THEIR COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.CBSE/COORD/2025 DATED 20.01.2025 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE READ DOWN THE SAID CATEGORIZATION EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO BE GIVEN TO THE STUDENTS AGAINST WHOM NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY THE FOUL INTENTS ON THEIR PART (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) The petitioner, a Class XII student is before this Court faced with an order passed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, CBSE) imposing penalty under category-III i.e., cancellation of current as well as next years examinations in all subjects.
2. On the first day of examination of Physical Education, about 25 minutes after the commencement of the -3- examination, the Invigilator noticed the mobile phone in the petitioner's hip pocket and the Invigilator reported the matter to the Observer at the centre. Immediately, the mobile phone was seized and a fresh set of question paper and answer script was given to the petitioner to complete the examination. The petitioner hardly got about 1 hour 45 minutes to complete the paper, since the rest of the time was spent on enquiry, checking and other formalities. The petitioner was permitted to write the other papers. However, after the conclusion of the examinations, the petitioner was called for an enquiry on 09.04.2025. The petitioner explained to the committee that the petitioner arrived very late to the examination centre and in a hurry, he went into the class room, unmindful of the fact that the mobile phone was in his hip pocket. In fact, the mobile phone went unnoticed even when the petitioner was frisked before he entered the class room. The petitioner explained to the committee that he had no material pertaining to the examination in the mobile phone. This was verified by the committee and they did not find any incriminating material pertaining to the examination. Nevertheless, the committee -4- recommended punishment to the petitioner under category-
III and accordingly, the CBSE proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-A.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits while pointing out to the instructions issued by the CBSE at Annexure-B dated 20.01.2025, that in category-I clause 1.5, the guidelines provide for grant of benefit of doubt to such students against whom no evidence is available to testify to foul intents on their part even when the student is found having copying material (hard copy etc.) in his/her possession but have not used it. The benefit of doubt can be granted if there is supporting report of the Invigilator/Checking staff. However, in category-III for possession of any electronic device (including mobile phone), supported by a report of the Invigilator, nevertheless, punishment is mandated to cancel the current examination as well as the next years examination. Such student shall also take the examination in all the subjects thereafter. Learned Counsel, therefore submits that the discrimination is apparent on the face of the record, although the report of -5- the Invigilator supports the case of the student that the material is not used, although it was in the possession of the student.
4. Learned Counsel would place reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shuchi Mishra Vs. Joint Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy and Others, reported in 2020 (6) Kar.L.J. 586, where under similar circumstances a student handed over the mobile phone to the Invigilator, after commencement of the examination. It is submitted that the co-ordinate Bench held that the petitioner, like any other student of her age and presumably with examination anxiety which ordinarily they develop in varying degrees, had inadvertently carried the mobile phone into the examination hall. The co-ordinate Bench held that the Constitution of India enshrines several Articles guaranteeing rights and privileges to the children and they are complimented with numerous legislature and quasi legislature keeping in mind India's 1992 Ratification of the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC). The writ petition -6- was allowed quashing such an order passed by the CBSE and a writ of mandamus was issued to announce the result of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Regional Officer, CBSE preferred an intra-court appeal in W.A.No.686/2020 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 04.03.2021. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the matter stands squarely covered in the decision and therefore, similar orders are required to be passed in this writ petition also.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-CBSE however draws the attention of this Court to the Examination Bye- Laws of the CBSE effective from 31.01.1995 and updated upto January 2013. It is pointed out that regulation 36 under the broad heading "Rules of Unfair Means Cases" and more particularly, 36.1(iv) provides that if during the course of examination, a candidate is found indulging in any of the listed categories therein, the student shall be deemed to have used unfair means at the examinations and as such his/her result shall not be declared but shall be marked as Unfair Means (UFM). Clause(a) therein lists - having in -7- possession papers, books, notes or any other material or information relevant to the examination in the paper concerned. Further, clause (v) provides that a candidate found guilty of any of the unfair means mentioned at clause
(iv), may be disqualified by the Board from the examination in that year (i.e., his/her examination for that year may be cancelled); may further be debarred from appearing at any examination of the Board for the period which may extend upto 5 years; and in serious cases, such student may permanently be debarred from taking any examination of the Board. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner was permitted to continue in the examination in terms of regulation 36.2(i) and it does not mean that the results of the papers that were permitted to be written should be announced.
6. Learned Counsel would also place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Vineeta Mahajan (Ms) and Another (1994) 1 SCC 6, where it was held in paragraph No.5 as follows:
-8-
"5. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. The High Court fell into patent error in reading a rebuttable presumption in the language of the rule. The Rule clearly defines "the use of unfair means at the examination" and lays down in simple language that a candidate having in possession, papers relevant to the examination in the paper concerned, shall be deemed to have used unfair means at the examination. The sine qua non, for the misconduct under the rule, is the recovery of the incriminating material from the possession of the candidate. Once the candidate is found to be in possession of papers relevant to the examination, the requirement of the Rule is satisfied and there is no escape from the conclusion that the candidate has used unfair means at the examination. The Rule does not make any distinction between bona fide or mala fide possession of the incriminating material. The High Court reasoning, that the candidate having not used the material - in spite of the opportunity available to her - the possession alone would not attract the provisions of the Rule, in our view, is not borne out from the plain language of the Rule. May be, because of strict vigilance in the examination hall the candidate was not in a position to take out the papers from the pencil box and use the same. The very fact that the took the papers relevant to the examination in the paper concerned and was found to be in possession of the same by the invigilator in the examination hall is sufficient to prove the charge of using unfair means by her in the examination under the Rule."
7. Similarly, in Controller of Examinations and Others Vs. G. S. Sunder and Another, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 82, the Apex Court held in paragraph No.10 as follows:
"10. We have given our careful consideration to the above submissions. One thing must be put beyond doubt, in matters of enforcement of discipline this -9- Court must be very slow in interference. After all, the authorities in charge of education whose duty it is to conduct examinations fairly and properly, know best how to deal with situations of this character. One cannot import fine principles of law and weigh the same in golden scales. In the present system of education, the system of examinations is the best suited to assess the progress of the student so long as they are fairly conducted. Interference by court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. For instance, we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which has grown into canker of mass copying. Such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocent and the intelligent students are not affected. We fell that:
the hour has come when we must clear The educational fields from poison and from fear, We must remould our standards-build them higher, And clear the air as though by cleansing fire, Weed out the damning traitors to education, Restore her to her ancient place of awe."
8. Heard learned counsel Sri P.N.Rajeswara for the petitioner, Smt. Ananditha Reddy, for respondents No.1 and 3, learned counsel Sri B.Suresh for respondent No.2 and perused the petition papers.
9. It is noticeable that in almost identical circumstances, where the student carried mobile phone into the examination hall and there was no allegation of the student being caught looking at the mobile phone or -10- using the mobile phone, the Co-ordinate bench held in the case of Shuchi Mishra (supra), where the extant regulation of the CBSE had fallen to consideration, that when tender minds commit a mistake, they cannot be treated with iron gloves; the penalty order arguably may answer the requirement of letter of law but certainly falls short of standards of justice and fairness. It was noticed that the committee which conducted the enquiry did not find any incriminating material in the mobile phone pertaining to the paper/subject of the day. In the present case too, there is no material placed before this Court at the hands of the respondents or the disclosure of any such information found at the hands of the committee. It is also noticeable that the Hon'ble Division Bench, in W.A.No.686/2020, dated 04.03.2021, held that it is true that Bye-law 36.1 provides for the punishment for using unfair means. However, it was held that the respondent Board has not been able to make out a case that the student has used the mobile phone while giving the examination, therefore, this Court can safely arrive at a conclusion -11- that the student was negligent in carrying a mobile phone to the examination centre, but as the mobile phone was not used at all, the punishment awarded has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge. The respondent - CBSE has accepted the orders passed in the case of Shuchi Mishra (supra).
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in contending that in Category-I, Clause 1.5, the guidelines allowed benefit of doubt to be given to such students against whom no evidence is available to testify to foul intents on their parts even when the student is found possessing copying material (hard copy etc.,), but have not used the same. Although, a challenge is raised to Category-III (new), on the ground of discrimination when compared to Category-I, nevertheless, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would suffice to read down the said categorization, extending the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein should also -12- get similar benefit, on parity, with that of Shuchi Mishra (supra).
12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 28.05.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to announce the results of all the papers written by the petitioner and issue the statement of marks and the certificate to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
13. Pending Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL/KLY CT: JL