Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Jomon Jaison – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education – Respondent
Wa No. 1202 Of 2026
Decided On : 19-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Advs., Sri.T.S.Harikumar, Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman
For The Respondent:Advs., Shri.P.A.Mohammed Shah, Addl.Advocate General

Courts shall not interfere in academic policy matters or expert-led examination evaluation systems under writ jurisdiction unless the policy is shown to be patently arbitrary, unconstitutional, or contravenes specific statutory provisions, or founded on substantiated allegations of mala fides, rather than simply differing in technical preference.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review of academic policy - Scope and limitations - Courts should not normally interfere with policy decisions of the government or expert body recommendations regarding educational admission criteria or examination evaluation methodologies, unless such policies are demonstrated to be arbitrary, contrary to statutory provisions, or unconstitutional. (Paras 27, 29, 32, 34)

(B) Administrative Law - Mala fides - Pleadings and proof - Allegations of mala fides require specific particulars and material facts rather than mere assertions; vague or bald statements are insufficient to prove improper intent in the formulation of academic policies. (Paras 21, 22, 23)

(C) Education - Examination Boards - Normalization of marks - The objective of normalizing scores across different educational boards is to ensure equitable merit assessment; such processes, designed by expert committees to account for varying difficulty levels, are permissible so long as they do not result in unfair downward revision and are consistent with fairness and transparency. (Paras 18, 24)

Facts of the case:
Public interest in admission to professional degree courses led to challenges against administrative orders changing subject weightage and the standardization formula for rank calculation. The petitioners challenged these changes, citing reliance on an internal committee's recommendations rather than those of a previously established expert review committee, alleging that the new formula created inequity and was driven by mala fide intent to favor certain educational systems.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the challenged normalization system was transparent and intended to address disparities across different examination boards without causing unjustified reduction in scores. The internal committee responsible for the change comprised experienced administrators and educators, and their recommendations were found to be reasoned and justifiable. The court further noted that the petitioners failed to substantiate allegations of mala fides or demonstrate how the policy violated any constitutional or statutory rights.

Issues: Whether the government's policy change regarding subject weightage and the normalization formula for entrance examinations is subject to judicial interference, and whether the process adopted by the internal committee was arbitrary or mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judges lack the technical expertise to supersede decisions made by expert academic bodies. Unless a manifest violation of law or constitutional principles is clearly proven, the court must defer to the government's wisdom in evolving academic evaluation methodologies, as the policy-making domain is primarily reserved for the executive and the appointed experts.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026, which was one filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Rt.)No.1615/2025/H.Edn. dated 26.12.2025 and the consequent amendments made in Ext.P9 prospectus of KEAM- 2026 regarding the change in the subject weightage and standardisation formula; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to maintain 1:1:1 ratio for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, and the original standardisation formula, as approved by the 2011 Expert Committee, for KEAM-2026 admissions; and a declaration that any change to the standardisation formula or subject weightage for professional entrance examinations must be based on the recommendations of an independent high-level Expert Committee of Statisticians and Academicians, and not merely on an internal administrative proceedings.

2. The appellants-petitioners, who are class XII students belonging to the CBSE stream, who are aspiring admission to engineering courses in the State of Kerala during the academic year 2026-27, are aggrieved by the subject weightage and standardisation formula in Ext.P9 prospectus for KEAM-2026, which was introduced in the prospectus based on Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the relevant extract of the prospectus for admission to professional degree courses-2012 published by the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, which was approved by the 1st respondent State vide G.O.(Ms.)No.355/2011/H.Edn. dated 28.12.2011. Ext.P2 is the relevant extract of the prospectus for KEAM-2025, which was approved vide G.O.(Ms.)No.97/2025/ H.Edn. dated 19.02.2025. Ext.P3 is a copy of G.O.(Ms.)No. 470/2025/H.Edn. dated 01.07.2025, whereby the Government amended the standardisation/normalisation formula in Ext.P2 prospectus for KEAM-2025. The existing conditions of the said prospectus and the amendment made thereto are shown in a tabular form in the Annexure to Ext.P3 Government order. The document marked as Ext.P4 is the report dated 02.06.2025 of the Standardisation of Review Committee, submitted before the State Government, which has been referred to in Ext.P3 Government order.

3. The standardisation formula introduced by Ext.P3 Government order dated 01.07.2025 was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C)Nos.24976, 24951, 25180 and 24767 of 2025. Those writ petitions were disposed of by the judgment dated 09.07.2025, with the observations and directions contained therein. The learned Single Judge found that after the conduct of the entrance examination, the Government is denuded of its power, even under Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus for KEAM-2025, to change the prospectus. The learned Single Judge set aside the change in the said prospectus and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, was directed to publish the rank list in accordance with the prospectus, which was published on 19.02.2025.

4. Challenging the common judgment dated 09.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025 and connected matters, the State and the official respondents filed W.A.Nos.1699, 1700, 1701 and 1702 of 2025. By the judgment dated 10.07.2025 of a Division Bench in which both of us are parties, those writ appeals were dismissed, whereby interference was declined on the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025 and connected matters.

5. The parents of the appellants-petitioners submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 12.11.2025 before the Minister for Higher Education, Kerala, apprehending the introduction of a new standardisation formula in the prospectus for KEAM-2026, as done in the case of Ext.P2 prospectus for KEAM-2025. On receipt of Ext.P5 representation, the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, sent Ext.P6 reply dated 04.12.2025, where

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.Jomon Jaison – Petitioner Versus The State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education – Respondent Wa No. 1202 Of 2026Decided On : 19-06-2026

Cases Referred (9)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Jomon Jaison – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education – Respondent
Wa No. 1202 Of 2026
Decided On : 19-06-2026