Penalties imposed without proof of foul intent in educational assessments are unjust; prior judicial decisions support providing benefit of doubt to students in similar circumstances.

ORDER :

1. 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 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 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 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, 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 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-co