SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 180

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Sri Mohit Kumar Sahu (Minor) Represented Through Its Father Guardian, Sri Chanchal Kumar Sahu - Petitioner
Vs.
Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi Represented Through Its Chairman, CBSE Integrated Office Complex, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
WP(C) No.32053 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Kunal Kumar Swain, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. T. Pattanayak, Adv. (For the CBSE)

Examination results cannot be canceled based on assumptions or without direct evidence; such actions violate principles of fairness and equality.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition filed to quash the memorandum cancelling the results of the petitioner on grounds of alleged unfair means during examinations - Conduct of examinations must rely on direct evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient - (Paras 6, 9).

(B) Discrimination - The cancellation of the petitioner's results appears discriminatory as results of all other students were published despite allegations of similar answers - The examination authorities failed to provide necessary proof or report substantiating claims of malpractice (Paras 9, 10).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a minor, appeared for his Senior School Certificate Examination and had his results canceled after claiming unfair means based on similarities with answers from other students; no direct evidence was provided to support the claim.

Findings of Court:
The court found the cancellation unsustainable due to lack of direct evidence and ordered the publication of the petitioner's results.

Issues: Whether the memorandum regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s results based on allegations of malpractice is sustainable under law and whether it constitutes discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that results should not be canceled based only on presumptions or conjectures without concrete evidence and reiterated that fundamental rights must be preserved.

Result: The impugned memorandum is quashed; the respondents are directed to publish the petitioner's results.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the petitioner’s examination scenario. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the disputed cancellation of examination result. (Para 3 , 6)
3. court's analysis of evidence regarding cancellations. (Para 5 , 7 , 9)
4. legal principles regarding the standards required for cancellation of results. (Para 8)
5. conclusion directing the publication of petitioner’s results. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned memorandum dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Under Secretary (Confidential), Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.3) and for issuance of necessary directions to the Opp. Parties to publish the result of the petitioner, in respect of his Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) within a stipulated time and to pass such other order/orders or direction/directions as the Courts deems fit and proper in order to give complete relief to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he petitioner was a regular student of Class-XII of Zenith Lions Gurukul, Padampur in the District of Bargarh. He (petitioner) appeared his Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) under the Central Board of Secondary Education in Padampur Public School in the District of Bargarh as a regular student on the basis of the admit card vide Annexure-1 issued to him by the CBSE (Opp. Party No.1). Though, in the said examination, he (petitioner) had done extremely well, but his result in the website was published on dated 13.05.2025 in Annexure-2 reflecting as R.L. (Result Later) and no marks were awarded to him in any paper. Subsequent thereto, the Principal, Zenith Lions Gurukul, Padampur provided the official order dated 26.05.2025 issued by the Regional Direction, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-3) stating that, the result of the petitioner in two subjects i.e. Chemistry (Subject Code: 043) and English (Subject Code:301) were cancelled on the ground of adoption of unfair means (UFM) during examination as in respect of Chemistry it was alleged that, same wrong answer for answer of question Nos.12 in set 3 with many adjacent students of the examination hall. So far as the subject English is concerned, it was mentioned that, in all the sets, most of the answers were written in same pattern with many adjacent students of the examination hall. For which, his entire result of 2025 was cancelled.

To which, the petitioner challenged by filing WPC No.17098/2025 praying for quashing the cancellation of his result and to direct the Opp. Parties to publish his result. The said Writ Petition vide WPC No.17098/2025 of the petitioner was decided analogously with other writ petitions by this Court and the Judgment thereof was passed on dated 15.09.2025 as per Annexure-4, wherein, the C.B.S.E (Opp. Party No.1) was directed to make an enquiry in terms of Bye- Laws 36 of the CBSE after giving reasonable opportunity of participation to the petitioner stipulating the outer limit of that enquiry within two weeks keeping all the contentions of the parties open.

In pursuance to the said analogous Judgment passed on dated 15.09.2025 in WPC No.17098/2025 along with other WPCs vide Annexure-4 by this Court, the CBSE (Opp. Party No.1) conducted an enquiry into the matter through its UFM Sub-Committee and during the course of that enquiry, the UFM Sub-Committee of the CBSE supplied a printed format to the petitioner asking him 18 questions in the form of answering yes or no such as i) whether he has adopted unfair means or not, ii) what is the name of his principal iii) Do you know the invigilators etc.

Out of the said 18 questions, the above 3 questions were not related to the subjects in question and 6 questions were asked to the petitioner in respect of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top