Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by students who had successfully completed their Class XII Board Examinations in 2025 under the aegis of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The petitioners sought to assail the notifications dated 04-09-2025 and 15-09-2025 whereby CBSE discontinued the facility of appearing in an “Additional Subject” as private candidates. A Single-Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., held that —
-
CBSE Examination Bye-Laws possess statutory character and must be duly notified to acquire enforceability.
-
Publication of internal minutes does not amount to valid promulgation of subordinate legislation.
-
A policy change withdrawing an existing benefit cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of students who have already altered their position in reliance upon the prevailing regime.
-
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation applies where a consistent statutory practice creates a reasonable and enforceable expectation of continued benefit.
The Court directed the CBSE to take necessary steps within three working days to make arrangements for registration of the petitioners for the Additional Subject examination.
Factual Matrix
The CBSE, a national examining body functioning under the control of the Union of India, conducts secondary and senior secondary examinations in accordance with its Examination Bye Laws, 1995. Under Clause 43(i) of the Examination Bye Laws, as it stood for over a decade, candidates who had passed the Class XII examination were permitted to appear for an Additional Subject as private candidates. Initially available for six years from the date of passing, this window was reduced to two years by an amendment in 2021.
Relying on this prevailing legal position, the petitioners consciously decided, after passing Class XII in May 2025, to take a drop year in order to prepare for an Additional Subject, which was necessary to meet eligibility requirements for higher education programmes requiring specific subject combinations.
On 04-09-2025, CBSE issued a public notification for the 2026 examinations, which removed the option of appearing in an Additional Subject as a private candidate. The online registration portal subsequently confirmed this change. A further notification dated 15 September 2025 reiterated the decision, justifying it on the ground that CBSE follows a “face-to-face mode” of education involving mandatory attendance and continuous internal assessment, and drew a distinction between CBSE and the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS).
Aggrieved by the sudden withdrawal of a facility on which they had acted to their detriment, the petitioners approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Moot Points
-
Whether the amendment withdrawing the facility of appearing in an Additional Subject as a private candidate was validly notified in accordance with law?
-
Whether the impugned notifications could be applied retrospectively to students who had passed Class XII in 2025?
-
Whether the impugned action violated the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution?
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that the Examination Bye Laws have statutory force and operate as law. Any amendment thereto must be duly promulgated and made known to the public. The decision to discontinue the Additional Subject facility, though allegedly taken in December 2024, was never notified or incorporated in the Bye Laws until September 2025.
The petitioners argued that they were denied the opportunity to make an informed choice and were “trapped into forfeiting their college seat to take a drop year based on the existing norm.” A policy change creating a substantive disqualification could not be applied retrospectively to extinguish rights that had already accrued.
Reliance was placed on the consistent and decade-long practice of CBSE, giving rise to a legitimate expectation that the two-year window would be available to them. The abrupt withdrawal of the facility, without notice or transitional protection, was assailed as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Respondent’s Contentions
CBSE contended that no vested right existed in favour of the petitioners to appear in an Additional Subject as private candidates. Once the policy was amended, no benefit under the earlier regime could be claimed. It was contended that publication of the minutes of the Governing Body meeting amounted to valid notification.
It was argued that the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not apply where there is a change in policy, particularly when such change is within the competence of the authority and in furtherance of academic standards. CBSE further submitted that students could avail the option of appearing through NIOS, and that courts should exercise restraint in matters of educational policy.
Court’s Analysis
The Court reaffirmed that the CBSE Examination Bye Laws are statutory in character and “have the force of law and must be regarded as such for all legal purposes.” Being subordinate legislation, they are binding on both the Board and students and amenable to judicial scrutiny.
The Court further emphasised that subordinate legislation must be duly published. A rule “does not acquire enforceability unless it is published or notified in a manner reasonably capable of coming to the knowledge of those affected.” Any amendment thereto must be notified in a manner reasonably capable of coming to the knowledge of those affected.
The Court rejected CBSE’s contention that publication of the minutes of the Governing Body meeting amounted to valid notification. The Court held minutes of the Governing Body to be internal documents, incapable of operating as public notice of a binding amendment.
“Any amendment to the CBSE Bye Laws, particularly one which withdraws a benefit or creates a disqualification, must not only be formally incorporated in the Bye Laws, but also be adequately notified in advance so as to enable affected candidates to regulate their conduct accordingly.”
The Court noted that earlier amendments were always notified through circulars on CBSE’s website, and the first public notification deleting the relevant clause was issued only on 04-09-2025. By that time, the petitioners had already passed Class XII in May 2025 and had acted upon the unamended Bye Laws. The Court held that “no reasonable person would be expected to go through the minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body to list down the decisions taken.”
On the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court found that the petitioners’ expectation was not based on mere hope but on a specific right conferred by Clause 43(i) and reinforced by consistent past practice. The sudden withdrawal of the facility, without prior notice or transitional safeguards, failed to meet the standards of fairness required of administrative action.
The Court further held that the suggested alternative of NIOS was illusory, as many universities and competitive examination authorities require a consolidated marksheet from a single recognised board, and compelling students to repeat multiple subjects afresh was not a viable option.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that while CBSE is competent to amend its Bye Laws, such power must be exercised prospectively and fairly. The Court found the impugned notifications, insofar as they applied to students who passed Class XII in 2025, to be arbitrary, violative of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the CBSE to make necessary arrangements within three working days to permit the petitioners to register for the Additional Subject examination. The Court clarified that the judgment was confined to the peculiar facts of students belonging to the Class XII batch of 2025.
[Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 438, Decided on 05-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Karan Nambiar, Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B F, Mr. Abeer Malik and Mr. Shubham Arun, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC, Counsel for the Respondent 1
Ms. Manisha Singh, Counsel for the Respondent 2