The scope of judicial review in artistic performance evaluations is limited, requiring exceptional reasons for interference.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner was a participant in the event ‘Chavittu Nadakam’ in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She was placed in the second place with ‘A’ Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P2 order dated 04.12.2025, the appeal was rejected against which this writ petition has been preferred.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

3. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that her performance on the day of the event was par excellence and she ought to have been awarded the first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed her in the second position which is required to be set aside and she be placed in the first place. Petitioner also stated that the score sheet did not contain the guidelines for marking of participants, which is mandatory according to her, as per the guidelines.

4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions and rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The Appellate Authority also noted that contentions urged on the technical issue raised by the petitioner had no basis.

5. Interference with the evaluation of a performance or the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be subjected to challenge in a writ petition, unless there are exceptional reasons. The contention that on the day of the event the performance of the petitioner was par excellence, is not a matter which can be appreciated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . This Court does not have the expertise in appreciating or evaluating performing arts and cannot assess the performance of the candidates.

6. The guidelines for the conduct of the School Kalolsavam stipulate in

10.10 as follows :-

"(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11) (cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:11) (cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:24) ti(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:27)(cid:18) (cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:14)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:16) (cid:11). (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:28) "#$%&' (cid:12)(cid:6)((cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:15))(cid:6)(cid:14)*#+ ,(cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:11) -(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:6)#. (cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13) (cid:12)/(cid:27)(cid:18) "(cid:4)(cid:6)0 (cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:6)(cid:28) 1%(cid:5)(cid:11) ,(cid:12)2 3(cid:29)(cid:31)(cid:21)(cid:14)4 (cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:15)& (cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:14)(cid:6) (cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21) (cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:24)4 (cid:22)+(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:16) (cid:11). -(cid:31)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:6) (cid:29)5(cid:16)(cid:15) 678(cid:11) (cid:31)9(cid:16):(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:6) ;4<(cid:16)+(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)& (cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:14) 4. ,=76 (cid:28) 67>(cid:14)(cid:18) (cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:14)(cid:6) ?(cid:29)(cid:4)(cid:16) (cid:12)(cid:6)((cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:15))(cid:6)@#+@4 3(cid:14)+(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:6)#. (cid:12)(cid:6)/((cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:24)

.”

(cid:29)(cid:4)A#B%(cid:5)C(cid:14)(cid:18) (cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:15)& 678(cid:6)#(cid:22)(cid:16)B4 (cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:16) (cid:11)

7. A reading of the above guidelines indicates that the evaluators ought to be informed of all the criteria for evaluation, prior to the performance. However, there is nothing that stipulates that the said criteria must also find a place in the score sheet. The guidelines only stipula