Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has refused to interfere with the assessment Scheme propounded by the C.B.S.E or I.C.S.E for the Class XII students and has held that,

“… the stated Schemes are fair and reasonable and take into account concerns of all students and is in larger public interest.”

Let’s have a look at why the Schemes and the decisions of the Boards were challenged:

Decision to cancel the Class XII examinations and declare results on the basis of internal assessment marks as propounded in the Scheme must be set aside and examination must be conducted for academic year 2020-21.

Rejected.

The Argument was rejected on the ground that the Boards have taken decision to cancel the examinations, which according to them, is in larger public interest including the body of students pursuing education with them.

“The fact that other Boards or institutions have been able to conduct examination does not necessarily mean that the Boards before us are bound by that dispensation. The Boards are autonomous Boards and are entitled to evolve their schemes independently.”

The Scheme ought to provide option at the threshold as to whether the student wants to appear in the examination for improvisation of marks, to be conducted by the concerned Board for that purpose. Further, the results of the internal assessment should be declared together with the results of such examination.

Rejected.

“… tweaking the Scheme in any manner, as propounded by the two Boards would result in denial of one option to the students and also delay the declaration of results indefinitely. There would be uncertainty until the examination for improvisation is actually conducted and results are declared.”

The Court explained that if the students are given the option of accepting the internal assessment marks, the results could be declared before 31.07.2021 and despite declaration of those results, they may still have the option of appearing in the examination for improvisation, if they so choose to.

Interestingly, somewhat similar Scheme was adopted in the previous academic year and the body of students accepted the internal assessment results. Hardly, 10 students from I.C.S.E. and 15000 from C.B.S.E. availed of the option to appear in the examination for improvisation of marks.

Past performance of three years of the students is being reckoned for internal assessment in the Scheme propounded by C.B.S.E is unfair and irrational.

Rejected.

The Court refused to take a second look at the Scheme which has been formulated by the expert body which was appointed by the Board consisting of thirteen members after taking all aspects into consideration in order to ensure that no candidate/student is prejudiced.

“… the Scheme intends to rationalize the internal assessment performance and bring semblance of parity amongst the assessment of different schools. This exercise will be undertaken by a broad-based Result Committee.”

Further, the Boards are independent and autonomous bodies and entitled to take their own decision with regard to the affairs of conducting examination by them.

The result should be declared on the same day.

Rejected.

Attorney General sumtted that U.G.C. will be issuing necessary instructions to ensure that the admission process by the colleges and institutions should commence only after the declaration of results by the C.B.S.E. and I.C.S.E., including the State Boards. Hence, ther aforementioned argument was rejected by the Court.

There is possibility of C.B.S.E. schools manipulating the records as the relevant data on the basis of which internal assessment is to be done is not in the custody or in possession of the C.B.S.E.

Rejected.

Stating that the argument was nothing but a vague apprehension, the Court took note of the Attorney General’s submission that the broad-based Result Committee would examine all aspects of the matter and take decision on the basis of registers maintained by the concerned schools, and inspected by the competent authority.

Clarification on conduct of examinations for private, patrachar and second compartment candidates

Examination will be duly conducted in which all these candidates can appear as private candidates and such examination will be conducted between 15.08.2021 to 15.09.2021 and the results would be declared at the earliest so that even these students would be in a position to pursue their further education, if they so desire.

Read the Schemes here

Class XII students’ evaluation scheme by CBSE and ICSE approved by Supreme Court with two additions: Here’s what we know

[Mamta Sharma v. CBSE, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 433, order dated 22.06.2021]


For UOI: Mr. KK Venugopal, Attorney General for India

For CBSE: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India

For ICSE: Senior Advocate JK Das

For interveners: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh

For Petitioners: Advocates Anshul Gupta and Abhishek Choudhary

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has accepted the schemes presented by CBSE and ICSE for assessment of students who were due to appear in the now cancelled Class XII Board exams.

The Court however, made clear that the scheme must incorporate two aspects:

(i) providing for Dispute Resolution mechanism, in case the students apply for correction of the final result declared by the concerned Boards.

(ii) the time-line to be specified for (a) declaration of the 6 result and (b) the date before which the optional examination will be conducted, subject to conducive situation and logistical constraints.

The Court also rejected the intervenor’s plea that the decision of the CBSE and the ICSE to cancel the examination be re-visited. It, however, gave time to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh to examine the scheme propounded by the concerned Boards and listed the matter on 21st June, 2021. The Court, however, made clear that

“… the concerned Boards are free to notify the final scheme on the above lines and include the two suggestions given by the Court. If any further suggestion is given by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel, that matter can be addressed appropriately.”

Key highlights of CBSE’s Scheme

  • Due to cancellation of the Board examinations, the assessment of theory portion of 80/70/60/50/30 marks will be done by the school based on the following:

Class XII: Marks based on Unit Test/Mid-Term/Pre-Board Exam – 40 %

The computation of theory marks for class XII will be based on performance in one or more Unit Test(s)/MidTerm/Pre-Board(s) theory examination. The result committee of the school may decide weightage to be given to each exam based on the credibility and reliability of the assessment.

Class XI: Marks based on theory component of final exam -30 %

Class X: Marks based on average theory component of best three performing subjects out of main 5 subjects – 30 %

This average will be uniformly awarded to all the class XII subjects based on theory weightage. To facilitate ease in entering the theory marks of class X, the Board will provide the marks for the students who have appeared in CBSE class X examinations. For students of other Boards, the schools will have to enter the information based on the class.

  • The marks of Practical/Internal Assessment etc. of class-XII will be on actual basis as uploaded by the school on the CBSE portal.
  • The total marks awarded should be in consonance with the past performance of the school in ClassXII Board Examinations.
  • The computation of theory marks for class XII will be based on performance in one or more Unit Test(s)/MidTerm/Pre-Board(s) theory examination. The result committee of the school may decide weightage to be given to each exam based on the credibility and reliability of the assessment.
  • To ensure standardisation, each school will have to internally moderate the marks to account for the school level variations by using a reliable reference standard.
  • The historical performance of the school, in terms of the best overall performance in the previous three years’ Board examination, will be taken as the reference for moderating the marks assessed by the school for 2020-2021.
  • The subject wise marks assessed by the school for 2020-2021 should be within a range of +/- 5 marks obtained by the students in the school in the subject in the reference year. However, the overall average marks for the school assessed in 2020-2021, for all the subjects, should not exceed the overall average marks obtained by the school by 2 marks in the specific reference year.
  • Once the Result Committee finalizes the marks on the basis of tests/exams, it has to ensure that the marks of students are aligned with the broad distribution of marks provided by the Board. It may be noted that the indicated distribution has to be followed broadly and there may be some difference in terms of number of actual students in each category of the distribution than the one indicated. However, the school subject wise and overall scores should be within the limits provided.
  • Students not satisfied with the Assessment Students who are not satisfied with the assessment, done based on the policy will be given an opportunity to appear in examinations to be conducted by the board when conditions are conducive for holding the examinations. As per this policy, marks scored in later examination will be considered as final.
  • For Private, Patrachar and 2nd chance Compartment candidates etc. Examination will be conducted by the Board as and when the conditions become conducive for conduct of such examinations. The details will be notified in due course.”

Key highlights of ICSE’s Scheme

  1. The components used to arrive at the formula limited to

(i) marks percentage in class X board examinations,

(ii) the Project & Practical Work in the subjects,

(iii) the performance of the candidates in the school examinations in the subjects in classes XI and XII, measured through their best marks obtained in the two years (referred to as raw marks) and (iv) the best performance of the school in the last six years.

  1. The first factor measures the general proficiency of the candidates, the next two factors measure the subject proficiency of the candidates, while the last 5 is a measure of the general quality of the schools the candidates are appearing from.
  2. To arrive at the weights, detailed analyses were performed on the data from the past board examinations from the years 2015 to 2020.
  3. Extensive scenario analyses were done based on different subjects.

[Mamta Sharma v. CBSE, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 430, order dated 17.06.2021]


For UOI: Attorney General KK Venugopal

For CBSE: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

For ICSE: Senior Advocate JK Das

For Intervenors: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that the right to control one’s identity is a fundamental right and the Central Board of Secondary Education cannot deny such right by refusing to allow a person to change their name in the Certificates without giving them reasonable opportunity.

Issue

Whether an individual’s control over such cardinal element of identity could be denied to him/her by the Central Board of Secondary Education on the specious ground that its Examination Byelaws of 2007 must prevail over the claim of the candidate, which are merely intended to regulate such a claim and to delineate the procedure for correction/change in the contents of certificate(s) issued by it including regarding maintenance of its office records?

Analysis

Do you have the right to change your identity?

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, said Juliet. This quote from William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is unarguably one of the most iconic dialogues in classical literature.  It conveys that the natural characteristics of an individual are more important than his/her artificial/acquired characteristics.  A poetic statement as it certainly is, it does not go in tune with the significance of a name in marking the identity of an individual in his/her societal transactions. To put it differently, name is an intrinsic element of identity.”

Identity is an amalgam of various internal and external including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity. And therefore, an individual must be in complete control of her name and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such control freely “for all times”. Such control would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to be recognized by a different name for a just cause.

Any change in identity of an individual has to go through multiple steps and it cannot be regarded as complete without proper fulfilment of those steps. An individual may self¬identify oneself with any title or epithet at any point of time. But the change of identity would not be regarded as formally or legally complete until and unless the State and its agencies take note thereof in their records. Afterall, in social sphere, an individual is not only recognized by how an individual identifies oneself but also by how his/her official records identify him/her. For, in every public transaction of an individual, official records introduce the person by his/her name and other relevant particulars.

However, going by the very nature of rights under Article 19, the right to get changed name recorded in the official (public) records cannot be an absolute right and as a matter of public policy and larger public interest calls for certain reasonable restrictions to observe consistency and obviate confusion and deceptive attempt.

Byelaws violative of fundamental right to change one’s identity?

The concerned Byelaw has been framed on the assumption that there can be no situation wherein a legitimate need for change of name could arise for a student after publication of results. It is presumed that only typographical/factual errors could come in the certificates and they can be corrected using the provision for corrections.

“The presumption, we must note, is erroneous, absurd and distances itself from the social realities.”

There can be numerous circumstances wherein change of name could be a legitimate requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of preserving the standard of education in mind, the Board must provide for a reasonable opportunity to effect such changes.

Further, the balance of convenience would tilt in favour of students.  For, they stand to lose more due to inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry is increasing administrative burden.

“The obligation of Board to take additional administrative burden is no doubt onerous but the propensity of a student losing career opportunities due to inaccurate certificate is unparalleled.”

A Board dealing with maintenance of educational standards cannot arrogate to itself the power to impact identity of students who enrol with it. The right to control one’s identity must remain with the individual, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions.

What kind of requests can be made?

Where the incumbent wants “correction” in the certificate issued by the CBSE:

  • There is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations.
  • While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim against it by third party because of such correction.
  • The CBSE would be justified in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate  original certificate, as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with the fresh certificate to be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with  caption/annotation against the changes carried out and the date of such correction.
  • It may retain the original entries as it is except in respect of correction of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten.
  • The fresh certificate may also contain disclaimer that the CBSE cannot be held responsible for the genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate.
  • The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing   fresh   certificate.
  • At the same time, the CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results. Such a condition, would be unreasonable and excessive.
  • If the application for recording correction is based on the school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained by it.
  • However, if the request for recording change is based on changed school records post the publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the candidate would be entitled to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because such a change would occur obviously at her instance.
  • If she makes such application for correction of the school records, she is expected to apply to the CBSE immediately after the school records are modified and which ought to be done within a reasonable time.

Indeed, it would be open to the CBSE to reject the application in the event the period for preservation of official records under the extant regulations had expired and no record of the candidate concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed.

In the case of subsequent amendment of school records, that may occur due to different reasons including because of choice exercised by the candidate regarding change of name. To put it differently, request for recording of correction in the certificate issued by the CBSE to bring it in line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to application made prior to publication of examination results of the CBSE.

“Change” of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE:

The request for “change” of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE,  presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records.

When are such requests made?

(a) on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith.

There is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses.

The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant.

The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof.

“In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).”

(b) due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time which need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate:

Such a request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of   prescribed fees.

The fresh certificate may retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE.  This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.

Directions

  • The CBSE to process the applications for correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificate issued by it in the respective cases under consideration.
  • Even other pending applications and future applications for such request be processed on the lines of the decision of the Court in the present case, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws.
  • Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it.

[Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 415, decided on 03.06.2021]


Judgment by: Justice AM Khanwilkar 

Know Thy Judge| Justice AM Khanwilkar

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Orissa High Court: K.R. Mohapatra J., ordered in favour of the aggrieved student in light of prevailing extraordinary situation due to COVID-19.

The facts of the case are such that petitioner 2 son of petitioner 1 was admitted as student in Class 11 in the respondent school and was unfortunately taken into custody in February 2020 and released on bail in March 2020. While in custody annual exam was conducted and petitioner student couldn’t appear. In the last week of March nationwide lockdown was announced and the petitioner student could not submit his representation by 17-06-2020 in view of the extraordinary situation. Later his representation was rejected by the school due to delay. Odisha Human Rights Commission ordered the school to consider the case of the student but to no relief. Later this court vide order dated 17-07-2020 directed the school to provide the student with ID and password for online classes for Class XII (Commerce). Though the ID password was provided to the student but did not allow him to appear for the 1st-semester examination, him not having passed class XIth. Aggrieved by the same and as the half-yearly exams are approaching the present petition is filed for promotion of the petitioner student from Class-XI to Class-XII who is prosecuting his studies (Commerce Stream) in Delhi Public School, Kalinga, Adhalia, Cuttack i.e. the respondent school.

Counsel for the petitioners D.P Nanda, V. Narasingh, S. Das, S. Devi and B.B. Choudhury placed before the court press release and notification by CBSE dated 01-04-2020 and 13-05-2020 respectively

CBSE Press Release dated 01-04-2020:

 “2. For classes 9 and 11: It has come to our notice that though several schools affiliated to CBSE have completed their examination, evaluation and promotion process for students who were studying in grades 9 and 11 in the 2019-20 academic session, there are several schools that have not been able to do so. This includes among others, Kendriaya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, State/UT Government schools, private schools, schools located in India and abroad, etc. All such schools are advised to promote students of grades 9 and 11 to the next grades on the basis of all the school-based assessments including project work, periodic tests, term exams. etc. conducted so far. For any child who is unable to clear this internal process, (in any number of subjects), the school may utilize this period for providing remedial interventions, and school may give the opportunity of appearing in school-based test/s, online or offline. The promotion of such children may be decided on the basis of such tests.”

CBSE Notification dated 13-05-2020:

The whole country is facing a challenging time due to Covid-19. This is an unprecedented situation. Children are confined at home. Their schools are closed. They are experiencing mental stress and anxiety. Parents are worried about salaries, health of family etc. In this difficult time, children who have not been able to clear school examinations will be even more upset. The queries of such students are constantly being received by CBSE Queries from parents are also being received continuously. At such a difficult time, all of us will have to make joint efforts to relieve students from stress and to help them to mitigate their anxiety. CBSE, in view of the requests of the parents and students, as a one-time measure in extraordinary situation has decided that all the failed students of 9th and 11th will be provided an opportunity to appear in a school-based test again. Opportunity will be extended to students irrespective of whether their examinations have been completed and the exam results have been released or their exams have not been completed. This facility is to be extended irrespective of number of subjects and attempts. Schools by providing remediation to such students can conduct online/offline/innovative tests and may decide promotion on the basis of this test. This test can be taken in all subjects in which students have failed. Before holding the test, the schools will give sufficient time to the students to prepare. Therefore, all schools affiliated to CBSE will provide an opportunity to all the failed students of classes 9th and 11th for all subjects where students have failed. It is once again reiterated that this exemption is to be extended to all the students even if they have been given the opportunity earlier to this notification also. This one-time opportunity is being extended only in current year in view of the unprecedented conditions of Covid-19. This benefit is a onetime measure and will not be extended in future.”

Sd-Dr. Sanyam Bhardwaj,

Controller of Examinations”

 Counsel representing respondent school A P Bose submitted that due to the callous attitude and negligence, the petitioner student has lost his opportunity to appear in the re-test Annual Examination of Class-XI. Counsel for CBSE, T.N. Pattnaik submitted that clarification was asked from the school regarding whether the student was given a chance to appear or not, no reply of which has been received by the CBSE. Hence CBSE prayed for no role in the said matter.

The Court in view of the documents placed and arguments made, observed that the educational institutions must take all possible measures to build up the career of the students. They should not stand as a stumbling block, particularly when the academic career of a student is at stake.

The Court held that the tenor and purport of the CBSE notification dated 13-05-2020 makes it clear that the notification was issued so that all the failed students of 9th and 11th are provided an opportunity to appear in a school-based test again irrespective of whether their examinations have been completed and the examination results have been released or their examinations have not been completed. In view of the above, the Court directed the school authorities to conduct a special examination for the petitioner student to appear in the class promotion and shall also be allowed to appear in the Test/Half Yearly Examination of Class-XII (Commerce Stream) which is scheduled to commence from 12.10.2020.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed off.[Shamshad Begum v. UOI, 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 699, decided on 09-10-2020]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

After the All India Students Association has moved a letter petition on behalf of over 800 students earlier this month, a writ petition has been filed seeking suo moto congnizance of Supreme Court against the direction of CBSE to conduct the compartment examination amidst COVID-19 crisis.

The petition highlights that as per the CBSE Class X and XII results declared last month, around 150198 Class X students and around 87651 Class XII students were placed in the category of compartment full subject. When approached the Supreme Court, the students were asked to make representation before CBSE and upon doing so, CBSE, on August 6, 2020, without taking account of the present health crisis, provided for conduct of compartment exams.

Terming the said decision of CBSE to be in sheer violation of right to health which is part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petition submits:

  • the conduct of compartment examination will expose the examinees to a great risk. The conduct of offline exam will entail students to travel from one place to another which will further involve the risk of shared accommodation, use of public transport, etc. The petition states that the conduct of examination will also increase the risk of the parents, teachers, staff members, etc being exposed to the virus.
  • the conduct of online exam will be against the interest of students who do not have proper access to internet/laptops/personal computers.
  • the decision of the CBSE is itself flawed as it is against the MHA Unlock III guideline dated 29.07.2020, which provides that the schools, colleges and educational institutions will remain closed.
  • many states including Bihar, Telangana and Manipur have cancelled their state board examination, in view of COVID 19. It is considering the exponential growth in the number of COVID-19 cases.
  • Ramesh Pokhriyal, Minister of Higher Education has stated that yet there is no date fixed for reopening schools and the safety of the students is a primary concern.

“When there is no deadline for opening of schools, how can the students be then expected to appear for compartment examination in the current situation.”

  • On 12.08.2020, C.B.S.E. issued a circular providing for the filing of the examination form for compartment examination by 20.08.2020 extended upto 22.08.2020 (with late fees) and that the compartment examination are proposed to be conducted in September. However, it did not specify any particular date, schedule or mode of conduction of the said examination.
  • many colleges are about to close admissions and some have already announced their admission closure date, which is adversely affecting the career of lacs of students, who will be deprived entrance into Universities/Colleges/Institutions, where they are eligible to apply for admission.

“… if an alternative mechanism is not derived, many students will lose an academic year.”

The Students have, hence, prayed that the universities/colleges/educational institutions, in which a student is eligible to apply, are directed to extend deadline for admission for academic year 2020-2021, until the result of the compartment examination is announced.

The students also sought for direction to direct the C.B.S.E. to provide for alternative mode of assessment for the students placed in the category compartment and to provide a specific date (at the earliest) for the completion of the assessment of compartment students so that their right to apply to various universities/colleges/educational institutions, who have already announced the admission closing date, is not affected.

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

All India Students Association has moved a letter petition on behalf of over 800 students seeking suo moto congnizance of Supreme Court against the direction of CBSE to conduct the compartment examination amidst COVID-19 crisis.

The petition highlights that as per the CBSE Class X and XII results declared last month, around 150198 Class X students and around 87651 Class XII students were placed in the category of compartment full subject.

When approached the Supreme Court, the students were asked to make representation before CBSE and upon doing so, CBSE, on August 6, 2020, without taking account of the present health crisis, provided for conduct of compartment exams.

Terming the said decision of CBSE to be in sheer violation of right to health which is part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petition submits that the conduct of compartment examination will expose the examinees to a great risk. The conduct of offline exam will entail students to travel from one place to another which will further involve the risk of shared accommodation, use of public transport, etc. The petition states that the conduct of examination will also increase the risk of the parents, teachers, staff members, etc being exposed to the virus.

Regarding conduct of online exam, the petition submits that the same will be against the interest of students who do not have proper access to internet/laptops/personal computers.

The petition also highlights that CBSE has not given any clarity yet on neither the date of the compartment exam nor the mode of conduct. Many colleges are about to close admissions, which will adversely affect the careers of lacs of students who will be deprived entrance into the Institutions of their choice.

It is also submitted that the decision of the CBSE is itself flawed as it is against the MHA Unlock III guideline dated 29.07.2020, which provides that the schools, colleges and educational institutions will remain closed. The petition also states that many states have cancelled the conduct of examinations considering the exponential growth in the number of COVID-19 cases.

It further brings to Court’s notice that the Ramesh Pokhriyal, Minister of Higher Education stated yesterday that yet there is no date fixed for reopening schools and the safety of the students is a primary concern. When there is no deadline for opening of schools, how can the students be then expected to appear for compartment examination in the current situation.

The students, in their petition, state that they are not contending the importance of exams but are seeking appropriate direction of the Court only till the situation normalises. They have urged the Court to stay CBSE decision till the situation normalises. They also pray that steps for alternative system of evaluation be formulated and that provisional passing certificates may be given to the students until COVID-19 situation normalises, so that the students are not deprived of admission to colleges.

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Delhi High Court: Pratibha M. Singh, J., addressed a matter wherein CBSE informed the Bench that the students who appeared for CBSE 12th Board Examinations and whose results will be declared late, the deadline for applying re-evaluation will accordingly be extended.

Present petition was filed by a student who appeared for his 12th CBSE Board Examinations in 2019-20 who secured 95.25%.

In order to improve his scores, petitioner had applied for improvement exams and decided to drop a year and had further applied to take the improvement exams in 4 subjects. However, his Business Studies exams which was to be held on 24th March, 2020 could not be held due to the nation wide lockdown due to COVID-19 Pandemic.

Main grievance of the petitioner was that despite the 3 exams being taken by him, result of the said three improvement exams was not declared by CBSE.

Counsel for the CBSE, Amit Bansal submitted the results of all the regular students appearing for the CBSE Examinations have already been declared only the ones who had appeared for improvement exams are left in regard for their results to be declared.

On seeking instructions from CBSE, it was informed that the stated results will be declared before 27-07-2020.

Concerns placed by the Counsel, Manchanda were that, the petitioner had to update his registration with the Delhi University where he intended to pursue his undergraduate studies and the deadline for re-evaluation as fixed by CBSE ends today i.e. 20-07-2020.

Counsel for the CBSE submitted in response that the students whose results will be declared late, the deadline for applying re-evaluation will accordingly be extended.

Matter to be listed on 27-07-2020. [Sanyam Gupta v. CBSE, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 827 , decided on 21-07-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph, JJ has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking directions for uniform education with a common syllabus and curriculum for all children aged between 6-14 years across the country.  The Court was hearing the PIL filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

Suggesting to opt “one nation one education board”, the petition had also sought directions from the court to merge the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Petitioner argued that the reliefs which have been claimed are founded on the provisions of Article 21A of the Constitution and on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.

“the present educational system does not provide equal opportunity to students of all strata of society.”

The Court was, however, of the opinion that it is not within the domain of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to direct the constitution of a National Education Council or National Education Commission.

“These are matters which fall within the domain of experts. Similarly, the relief which has been of introducing a “standard textbook with a chapter on the Constitution” is a matter of policy. The school syllabus contains subjects bearing on the knowledge of rights, duties and governance under the Constitution.”

Asking the petitioner to approach the Government with his prayer, the Court said,

“The petition lays no foundation or justiciable basis for the Court to issue directions of this nature. … This is nothing but an effort to confer legitimacy on the petitioner’s attempt to enter into an area of educational policy.”

The ICSE and the CBSE are national-level boards of education in the country for schools.

[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 580 , order dated 17.07.2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Passing final order in the CBSE cancellation of CBSE Board examination issue, the 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has directed that petitions pertaining to CBSE examinations pending in this Court or any other Court shall be deemed to be disposed of in terms of the proposed notification to be issued by the CBSE, after CBSE placed the draft Notification before it.

The Draft Notifications proposes to cancel the Board examinations for classes X and XII which were scheduled from 1st July to 15th, 2020. Here are the other key highlights of the Draft Notification:

  • Assessment of the performance of students in the cancelled examinations will be done based on the assessment scheme as suggested by competent committee of the CBSE for declaration of result for both class-X and class-XII.”
  • Results to be announced by July 15, 2020.
  • For Class-XII, CBSE will conduct an optional examination in the subjects whose examinations were scheduled to be conducted from 1st July to 15th July, 2020 as soon as conditions are conducive, as assessed and decided by the Central Government.

“Candidates whose results will be declared based on the assessment scheme will be allowed to appear in these optional examinations to improve their performance, if they wish so.”

  • For candidates in Class X, no further examinations will be conducted and the result declared by CBSE on the basis of assessment scheme will be treated as final.
  • For class-XII, the result declared by the CBSE on July 15, 2020 will be considered as final unless the students opt for optional examination.

The Court, further said that if any other petition is pending in the Supreme Court or any other Court concerning the subject of conducting examinations for Classes X and XII by the CBSE scheduled from 1 st July, 2020 to 15th July, 2020, the same will be governed by this order and the notification approved by this Court.

Regarding ICSE Board examinations, it was submitted before the Court that the ICSE would issue similar notification with additional aspects referred to in the affidavit filed by them. However,

“ICSE may consider of conducting optional examination for Class X as well and abide by the same terms as regards the optional examination regarding Class XII referred to in the draft notification of CBSE…”

ICSE will also notify it’s Assessment Scheme within one week from today on it’s website.

The Court, hence, ordered that all proceedings/petitions pertaining to the subject matter of conducting examinations for classes X and XII by ICSE for Academic Year 2019-2020 pending in the Supreme Court or any other Court shall be deemed to be disposed of accordingly.

[Amit Bathla v. Central Board of School Education, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 541 , order dated 26.06.2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the bench of AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ that CBSE has cancelled the remaining class 10 and 12 Board exams, which were earlier rescheduled to be held between July 1 to July 15, the Court said that it will pass the appropriate orders in the matter tomorrow i.e. on 26.06.2020.

The Court had, on 23.06.2020, deferred the hearing in the plea filed by a group of parents after the Solicitor General told the the CBSE was in the process of taking a final decision in the matter.

Plea filed by a group of concerned parents stated that the CBSE has cancelled the examinations of Class 10 and 12 for its around 250 schools situated abroad and will be awarding marks on the basis of either practical exams or an internal assessment because of the pandemic. The parents seek to cancel the CBSE Class 10 and 12 exams in the wake of the spike in the COVID-19 positive cases in the Country.

[Amit Bathla v. Central Board of School Education, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 539 , order dated 25.06.2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and S.S. Shinde, J., adjourned the matter concerning conducting of Class 10th and 12th board examinations by ICSE. The High Court is awaiting the decision relevant to the issue to be passed by the Supreme Court.

Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra — A.A. Kumbhkoni informed the Court that a decision has been taken to not permit the respondent 2 to conduct classes 10th and 12th examinations re-scheduled from July, 2, 2020 given the current COVID-19 situation in the State.

Mr Mehta submits that the State has not taken any decision to prohibit the examinations in the State to be conducted by CBSE and, if indeed, the CBSE is permitted to proceed with the classes 10th and 12th examinations re-scheduled in July, 2020 there could be no valid reason not to permit the second respondent to go ahead with its own examinations.

Bench noted Advocate General for the State’s reaction that, since the Disaster Management Committee of the State has not been required to take a call in respect of examinations to be conducted by the CBSE in the State as per the revised schedule by any order of the Court, no decision as yet has ben taken; but as and when the situation so demands appropriate action would be taken.

Further it was observed that the decision taken by the Central Government and CBSE with regard to examinations shall be taken on 25-06-2020. Counsel on behalf of the State states that depending on the decision of Supreme Court, respondent 2 may work on methodology for completing the results of examinations and therefore Supreme Court’s decision is also awaited.

Thus, in view of the above, High Court’ opinion is that it ought to await the decision relevant to the issue.

State is directed to place before the Court the entire decision by the next date.Hence hearing of the PIL as well as the applications for intervention shall stand over till 29-06-2020. [Arvind Tiwari v. UOI, PIL-CJ-LD-VC-18 of 2020]


Also Read:

Bom HC | Centre and State to clarify stand on CISCE examinations; Courts asks to finalise grading plan to be adopted for evaluation

Bom HC | Students of Class 10th and 12th of 2020 batch can choose to be assessed on pre-board examinations instead of physically appearing for board exams: CISCE

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has deferred the hearing in the plea seeking quashing of the CBSE notification for conducting the remaining Class 10 and 12 exams from July 1 to 15, to Thursday after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that 

“the expert body is in the process of taking final decision in the matter very shortly and hopefully by tomorrow i.e. 24th June, 2020.”

Plea filed by a group of concerned parents stated that  the CBSE has cancelled the examinations of Class 10 and 12 for its around 250 schools situated abroad and will be awarding marks on the basis of either practical exams or an internal assessment because of the pandemic. The parents seek to cancel the CBSE Class 10 and 12 exams in the wake of the spike in the COVID-19 positive cases in the Country.

The Court will now hear the matter on 25.06.2020 after CBSE takes a final decision in the matter.

The Court also deferred a related matter dealing with cancellation of the Indian School Certificate Examinations (ISCE) to 25.06.2020.

[Amit Bathla v. Central Board of School Education, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 537, order dated 23.06.2020]

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Union Human Resource Development Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal ‘Nishank’ has advised CBSE to promote ALL students studying in classes I-VIII to the next class/grade.

In view of the current situation due to COVID-19. He also advised the board students studying in classes IX & XI will be promoted to next class/grade based on the school-based assessments including projects, periodic tests, term exams, etc. conducted so far. The Minister also recommended to conduct board examinations only for 29 main subjects that are required for promotion and maybe crucial for admissions in HEIs, and for rest of the subjects, the Board will not hold examinations; the instructions for marking/assessment in all such cases shall be separately issued by the Board.

As a precautionary measure and in compliance of the instructions received from Ministry of HRD, Government of India, dated 18th March, 2020, CBSE had postponed all the board examinations that were to be held between 19.03.2020 to 31.03.2020. It was informed in the Board’s press release dated 18.3.20 that “date sheets for the rescheduled board examinations shall be communicated by the board through its website and press release after re-assessment of the situation.”

To read the detailed press release, please click the link below:

PRESS RELEASE


Ministry of Human Resource Development

[Press Release dt. 01-04-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Shaji P. Chaly, J. allowed a civil writ petition filed by a former student of a CBSE school assailing CBSE officials’ order, rejecting her application seeking correction of particulars in her class X and XII certificate.

Petitioner herein had completed her X and XII standard from the respondent 4 school (Kendriya Vidyalaya CRPF, Pallippuram) under the Central Board of Secondary Education Board (CBSE). The instant petition was filed assailing the order of Regional Officer, CBSE (Respondent 2 and 5 herein) declining to carry out a correction in the certificates issued by CBSE with respect to the name of petitioner’s mother.

The reason for rejection of petitioner’s request was that there was delay on her part in seeking correction in class X certificate in accordance with the provisions of examination bye-laws of the CBSE; and so far as XII standard’s certificate was concerned, it was not in consonance with the school records and therefore, a Gazette notification was required for changing the name.

The Court relied on Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 34544 where it was held that in case of delay in seeking correction in a certificate, the said correction can be carried out by imposing a fine of Rs 5000. As far as the class XII certificate was concerned, petitioner’s application was within time, and the change sought by the petitioner was in accordance with her birth certificate in which the name of her mother was shown correctly.

In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside directing the respondent 2 to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law at the earliest.[Archa Mohan v. Controller of Examinations, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1161, decided on 01-04-2019]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): In a landmark case CIC held that a candidate can seek answer sheets of other candidates and that this is not marred by Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. However, it is subject to Sections 3 and 6.

The departmental examination which was conducted to decide the promotion on the job for the post of EO/AO comprised of four papers, out of which three were objective and one was descriptive in nature. Since the fourth paper was descriptive, no model answers were prepared. Around 3,000 candidates appeared in the exam out of which only 5 candidates were selected and this appellant was qualified but was not in the final list of four selected candidates as there were only four vacancies while the appellant stood at Number 5. Appellant wanted model answers for the Fourth Question paper also. The public authority has disclosed the questions and answers of all the candidates regarding three papers but refused to give four answer-sheets of four qualified candidates to the appellant. The appellant claimed that he wanted to check the answers given by four who topped above him and where he lacked in and if he was really ineligible to secure promotion.

The legality of demanding answer sheet in the examination is in principle upheld by the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 provided that the request is made during a reasonable time in which the authorities are expected to retain the answer scripts. SC held that answer book also does not fall under any of the exemption provided under (a) to (j) of sub-section 1 of Section 8 of RTI Act. So, an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e).

In Kewal Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2011 Chh 143, Chhattisgarh High Court held that conduct of examination by the departmental agency for promotion in Govt. department, are not private activities, but in public domain and the checking and evaluation of answer sheet by an examiner and the marks given by him upon assessment of performance has nothing to do with the privacy of either the examiner or those who are responsible for conducting the examination so Section 8 (1)(j) is not attracted.

In Centre of Earth Science Studies v. Dr. Mrs. Anson Sebastian 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 541, where one employee sought information pertaining to documents relating to domestic enquiry against another employee and also for getting entries in confidential report of six other employees of the appellant, repelling the claim of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005, the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala held that provision of Section 8(1)(j) are not attracted.

CIC analysed that in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhya, (2011) 8 SCC 497 the Supreme Court said no, but on certain practical issues. The CBSE pleaded that if it has to share certified copies of answer-sheets of other to each and every candidate seeking under RTI, it would lead to chaos and divert substantial resources. In UPSC v. Angesh Kumar,  (2018) 4 SCC 530,  the Court read the inherent limitation in Sections 3 and 6 as pertaining to revelation of information that is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The Supreme Court referred to the problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC, (2013) 12 SCC 489.

CIC observed that the most important point was that the rejection in CBSE and UPSC cases was not based on any exception under Section 8(1) including (e) & (j). CIC concluded that no such difficulty exists in the present case and the appellant was entitled to get copies of answer sheet of the four candidates who topped. [Shailendra Kumar Singh v. PIO, EPFO, CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/614958, decided on 08-06-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Rebuking the State of Kerala seeking to impose its authority over schools that provide apparently quality education, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ said:

“The fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children between the age of 6 and 14 years postulates good quality education and not just education for the sake of providing education. Regulation of such education is permissible by law and not by executive fiat.”

The Court was hearing the issue pertaining to guidelines issued by the State to the schools seeking affiliation. The guidelines stipulated the requirement of minimum 3 acres of land and a minimum 300 enrolled students for obtaining NOC for affiliation.

Requirement of minimum 3 acres of land:

State of Kerala: A school seeking an NOC for affiliation to the CBSE must have 3 acres of land out of which 2 acres should be contiguous and in the actual location of the school.

Court: According to the CBSE Bye-Laws, the minimum land requirement varies from location to location. In metropolitan and capital cities as well as in hilly areas, it would be difficult to get 3 acres of land or even 2 acres of land. Similarly, due to the terrain it would perhaps be difficult to get adequate land in the North Eastern region of the country as well as in Jammu & Kashmir. This realism deserves to be contrasted with non-realistic inflexibility of Kerala which too has some hilly areas where perhaps it might be difficult to find 3 acres of land.

“It appears to us that the rigid requirement of Kerala indicates that it is imposed upon the schools that seek affiliation with the CBSE only with a view to unnecessarily burden them with an onerous and arbitrary condition, since Kerala believes it has the authority to do so.”

Requirement of minimum enrolment of 300 students:

State of Kerala: If a school does not have a minimum of 300 students, it would be difficult for that school to pay the required wages of the staff and the teachers except by charging exorbitant fees.

Court: There is no material on record to substantiate such a conclusion and it is based merely on the ipse dixit of the State.

“We do not see how, if the number of students is less than 300, it will detract from the quality of education imparted to the students. In other words, the requirement of a minimum strength of 300 students is a completely arbitrary figure arrived at by Kerala and which has no rational nexus with quality education or the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws.”

Requirement of compulsory Aadhaar for enrolment of students:

The Court left the issue open to await the decision of Constitution Bench in the ongoing Aadhaar matter.

[State of Kerala v. Mythri Vidya Bhavan English M. Sch.,  2018 SCC OnLine SC 481, decided on 02.05.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rekha Palli, J., disposed of a petition against CBSE, filed by petitioners who claimed to be holders of Diploma in Elementary Education/Bachelor of Education.

The petitioners were seeking directions to the respondents by the Court to hold the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners contended that the petitioners are all eligible to be appointed as Primary Teachers/Trained Graduate Teachers however, they are not able to apply for the same against the vacancies being advertised by various employers only on account of not possessing the CTET. Respondent 1 (CBSE) pleaded that though it is authorized to conduct the examination but the same is done only upon instructions to that effect from Respondent 2 (NCTE) and that it has received no requisite instruction to that effect. NCTE, referred to Paras 4 and 11 of the guidelines for conducting TET, to contend that they have already authorised Respondent 1 to conduct the exam, and Respondent 1 has to conduct the same from time to time.

The Court, noting that lack of communication between the parties and the resulting loss to eligible candidates, directed Respondent 1 to expeditiously hold the next CTET examination within four months. Respondent 2 undertook the responsibility to write a letter in this regard to Respondent 1 within one week with any change in the syllabus. The petition was accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. [Himanshu Dabas v. CBSE,  2018 SCC OnLine Del 8350, decided on 12.04.2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

The Ministry of Human Resource Development has constituted a ‘High Powered Committee’ to examine the entire system of conducting Class X and Class XII examination conducted by the CBSE with a view to prevent leakages.

The terms of reference of the Committee are as under:

(a) To revisit all aspects related to the security checks built into the system for ensuring that the question papers reach the examinees without tampering.

(b) To examine and assess all areas of potential weakness in the present system of transporting question papers from the printing presses to the examinees.

 (c) To suggest ways in which the system can be made more secure with the use of technology and minimization of human intervention.

The 7 member committee includes:

  1. Shri Vinay Sheel Oberoi, Retd. Secy., (Higher Education), MHRD — Chairperson
  2. Shri Pavnesh Kumar, Retd. Controller of Examination(CBSE) & Former Secy.,(UP Examination Board) — Member
  3. J.S. Rajput, India representative on the executive board of UNESCO, former director (NCERT) & former Chairman (NCTE) — Member
  4. Vasudha Kamat, Independent Director (IRCON) & Former VC (SNDT Women’s University) — Member
  5. Krishna Mohan Tripathy (Ex-Director of Education, UP) & Chairman (Board of High School & Intermediate Education, UP)— Member
  6. Senior representative of DG (NIC)Member
  7. Joint Secretary (SE-II) — Member

The Committee has been directed to submit its report by/on/before 31-05-2018.

[Press Release no. 1527577, dt. 04-04-2018]

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Bench of SA Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ dismissed all 5 petitions challenging the decision of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conduct a re-examination of the Class 12 economics paper after an alleged leak. The Bench said that it is CBSE’s discretion to conduct the re-examination and can’t be challenged in the Court.

Several petitions were filed before the Court after the CBSE said on March 28 that the Class 10 maths and Class 12 economics paper had allegedly leaked. The CBSE, however, said yesterday that it has found after assessment there was no impact of alleged paper leak of Class 10 maths paper and no re-examination would be held.

Besides challenging the CBSE’s decision to conduct retest, the petitioners also wanted a CBI probe into the alleged paper leak, saying several incidents were reported from various states and Delhi Police was not competent to hold the nation-wide probe. One of the petitioners also sought a direction to the CBSE to declare the results on the basis of the examinations already conducted.

A petition filed by the students read:

“To penalise the student community for an incident which is under investigation and without completion of that investigation/enquiry and issuing a notice on March 28, 2018 (for re-exams), affects the fundamental rights of students which is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.”

Source: PTI

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Human Rights Commission: The NHRC has taken suo motu cognizance of media reports about the incidents of papers leak of Class X and XII board examinations being conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Reportedly, two cases have been registered on charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy and some arrests have been made.
The Commission has observed that prima facie, it seems the concerned authorities have failed to keep the faith of the students, intact. The humiliation being faced by the innocent students is amounting to violation of their Rights to Dignity and Education. Accordingly, it has issued notices to the Secretary, Union Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Chairperson, Central Board of Secondary Education and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi calling for a detailed report in the matter within four weeks.
The Ministry of Human Resource Development is also expected to inform the Commission about the steps taken regarding counselling of the aggrieved students and to make the process of conducting board examinations trustworthy and foolproof to avoid recurrence of such painful incidents in future.
The Commission has further observed that such instances would adversely affect the credibility of the institutions in which the students have absolute faith. The students have been undergoing trauma engulfed with helplessness, heart break and mental agony during examinations days. The parents and the teachers try their best to counsel and motivate the students to remain calm and confident these days. Several government and non-government agencies including the media also contribute to impart ancillary support to the students to deal with the anxiety, attached to the board examinations. In spite of all the best efforts made by every stake holder, if the preparations done by the students go in vain due to such demoralizing and unexpected incidents like paper leak, it would definitely shatter the enthusiasm of the young aspiring students.
According to the media reports, six students were detained by the police in Jharkhand’s Chatra district and the Crime Branch of Delhi police has also been cracking down. Several persons including administrators of some WhatsApp groups, coaching centre’s owners and tutors were questioned about the leak and as per recent media reports, three teachers have been arrested and an official of the CBSE has been placed under suspension.
Reportedly, the CBSE authorities have announced that the examinations for Class XII pertaining to the subjects in which papers were leaked, will be conducted again on 25 April, 2018. With regard to re-examination of Mathematics paper of Class X, it is informed that the decision will be taken in next 15 days. It is also reported by some newspapers that as the Class X paper leak was restricted to Delhi-NCR and Haryana, the re-test will take place in these regions only in the month of July, 2018. As stated by the CBSE authorities, the decision has been taken in the interest of the children and an inquiry into the leak is underway. The matter is being investigated into by the police and an intra departmental probe is also being conducted.

National Human Rights Commission