2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 8179

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND C.M. POONACHA
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION – Appellant
Versus
DONTHI SAATHVIK REDDY – Respondent
WA 1532/2025

The court held that a policy decision by an expert body (CBSE's Governing Body) to place mere possession of a mobile phone under UFM Category 3 cannot be judicially read down to extend a more lenient 'benefit of doubt' provision.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - CBSE Examination Bye-Laws, 1995 - Bye-Law No. 36.1(iv) - Bye-Law No. 36.1(v) - Possession of Mobile Phone - Unfair Means (UFM) - Category 3 (New) - Government Resolution dated 01.07.1929 - Clause 18 (Power to make Bye-Laws)

(B) UFM Guidelines - Judicial Review - The court held that the categorization of offences, including the placement of mere possession of a mobile phone under Category 3, was a policy decision made by an expert body (the Governing Body of the Board). The court declined to substitute its opinion for that of the expert body, holding that 'the question of reading down an aspect which has been specifically removed from Category 1 and inserted in Category 3 by an expert body is not liable to be interfered with/diluted by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.' (Para 31)

(C) Unfair Means - Mens Rea - The court distinguished the case from earlier precedent (e.g., Shuchi Mishra) on the basis of the subsequent amendment to the UFM guidelines. The court found that the student had carried a mobile phone into the examination hall, and while no incriminating material was found, the current guidelines (as amended in the 139th Governing Body Meeting held on 24.06.2024) specifically included 'possession, use or attempted use (including mobile phones)' under Category 3. The court held that 'even mere possession of a mobile phone has been mentioned in Category - 3, which prescribes a stringent penalty.' (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
A student (Respondent No. 1), pursuing Class 12, was found by the invigilator to have a mobile phone in his pocket approximately 25 minutes after the commencement of the Physical Education exam. The phone was seized, and a fresh question paper was provided. The student was permitted to write other papers. An enquiry committee found no incriminating material on the phone. Based on the report, the CBSE imposed a UFM Category 3 penalty, cancelling the current and next year's exams. The student challenged this in a writ petition before a learned Single Judge, who set aside the penalty, relying on the principle of 'benefit of doubt' from the earlier case of Shuchi Mishra. The CBSE appealed.

Findings of Court:
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It held that the UFM guidelines had been amended in the 139th Governing Body Meeting (24.06.2024) to place 'possession, use or attempted use (including mobile phones)' under Category 3 with a severe penalty. The court deferred to the policy decision of the expert body. It found no justification for reading down the guidelines. The student's explanation that the phone was carried unknowingly was not considered a mitigating factor under the new rules. (Paras 31, 33)

Issues: 1. Whether the punishment imposed under Category 3 of the UFM guidelines for possession of a mobile phone was just and proper? 2. Whether the 'benefit of doubt' clause from Category 1 could be read into Category 3? 3. Whether the court could interfere with the policy categorisation determined by the CBSE's expert body?

Ratio Decidendi: The placement of the mere possession of a mobile phone within Category 3 of the UFM guidelines was a deliberate policy decision ratified by a competent expert body (the Governing Body). A court under Article 226 cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the expert body on such a policy matter. Consequently, the severe penalty of cancellation of the current and next year's examinations is applicable without the requirement to prove actual use of the phone. (Paras 31, 32) Result : Writ Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the learned Single Judge set aside. (Para 34)

Table of Content
1. introduction to the appeal and factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of the learned single judge's order and the reasoning followed (Para 4)
3. contentions of the appellants (cbse) and the respondent (student) (Para 5 , 6)
4. examination of the relevant bye-laws and guidelines on unfair means (ufm) (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. analysis and rejection of the student's prayer to read down category-3 (Para 31 , 32)
6. conclusion: appeal allowed, impugned order set aside (Para 33 , 35)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION NO.XG28 XF5, CHANDRA LAYOUT EXTN., IIND STAGE, GNANA BHARATHI MAIN ROAD, NAAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU 560 072.

REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE)

COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, Di gitally NEW DELHI 110 092 signed by NIRMALA …APPELLANTS DEVI (BY SRI. ANANDITHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH COURT AND:

OF KARNATAKA

1. DONTHI SAATHVIK 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.

2. NEW BALDWIN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL SY.NO.128, OLD MADRAS ROAD, MANDUR, BUDIGERE, BENGALURU 560 049, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/08/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.16511/2025.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. The present intra Court appeal is filed by the Central Board of Secondary Examination [CBSE] and its Controller of Examination calling, in question the order dated 23.08.2025 passed in WP No.16511/2025 (EDN-RES) [impugned order]. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent-writ petitioner and set aside the impugned order/communication dated 28.05.2025 whereunder CBSE had communicated to respondent No.2 - institution, that due to the writ petitioner having been found to have used Unfair Means [UFM] a penalty under Category - 3, i.e., cancellation of the current as well as next year's examination in all subjects was imposed.

2. The relevant facts in nutshell leading to the present appeal are that respondent No.1 - writ petitioner was a student of respondent No.2 - institution pursuing his 12^th standard. The petitioner opted for the subjects Physical Education, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and English. The Class 12 examination commenced from 17.02.2025 and concluded on 11.03.2025. The examination center for the petitioner was Shri Ram Global School, Bommenahalli, Bangalore KK, which was stated to be 23 kms. away from the petitioner's residence. On the first day of the examination, which was for the subject, Physical Education, about 25 minutes after the commencement of the examination, the invigilator noticed a mobile phone in the petitioner's pocket and the said matter was reported to the observer at the center. Immediately, the mobile phone was seized and a fresh question paper and answer script was given to the petitioner to complete the examination. But, after the said incident, the petitioner was permitted to write the other papers.

3. After the conclusion of the examinations, the petitioner was called for an enquiry on 09.04.2025. In the enquiry, the petitioner sought to explain the incident by stating that he had arrived late to the examination center

Click Here to Read the rest of this document