- 1 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

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,

NEW DELHI 110 092

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. ANANDITHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

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

- 3 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

respondent-writ petitioner and set aside the impugn ed

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 cen ter.

Immediately, the mobile phone was seized and a fresh question

paper and answer script was given to the petitioner to complete the

- 4 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

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 and he went into the classroom in a hurry,

unmindful of the fact that the mobile phone was in his pocket. That

the mobile phone being in the pocket went unnoticed even when

the petitioner was frisked before entering the classroom. It is also

further sought to be explained that there was no material pertaining

to the examination in the mobile phones, which aspect was verified

by the committee and no incriminating material pertaining to the

examination was found. The committee recommended th e

punishment to the petitioner under Category - 3, consequent to

which CBSE passed the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 which

was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single

Judge. It is pertinent to notice the reliefs sought for in the writ

petition is as under:

"a) Strike down Category-3 (New) in the unfair

means categorization guidelines issued by the

CBSE as per their communication bearing

No.CBSE/Coord/2025 dated 20.01.2025 or in the

alternative read down the said categorization

extending the benefit of doubt to be given to the

- 5 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

students against whom no evidence is available to

testify the foul intents on their part; (Annexure-B)

b)ISSUE a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Order

bearing No.CBSE/RO/BLR/UFM-XII/2025 dated

28.05.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1

(Annexure-A);

c) ISSUE a Writ of Mandamus directing the

Respondents authorities to consider the Petitioner’s

representation dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-E) and

announce his results in respect of the Class-XII

examination for the academic year 2024-25 as per

his Admit Card No.DD034513 and

d) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court

deems fit to pass under the facts and circumstances

of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

4.

The learned Single Judge held that the case of the writ

petitioner was similar to the case of Shuchi Mishra Vs. Joint

Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy and

Others

1

, and held that a similar benefit ought to be given to the

petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the

petition and granted the reliefs. The relevant portions of the

impugned order of the learned Single Judge are as under:

"9. It is noticeable that in almost identical circumstances,

where the student carried mobile phone into the examination

hall and there was no allegation of the student being caught

looking at the mobile phone or using the mobile phone, the

Co-ordinate bench held in the case of Shuchi Mishra

(supra), where the extant regulation of the CBSE had fallen

to consideration, that when tender minds commit a mistake,

they cannot be treated with iron gloves; the penalty order

1

2020(6) Kar.L.J.586

- 6 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

arguably may answer the requirement of letter of law but

certainly falls short of standards of justice and fairness. It

was noticed that the committee which conducted the enquiry

did not find any incriminating material in the mobile phone

pertaining to the paper/subject of the day. In the present

case too, there is no material placed before this Court at the

hands of the respondents or the disclosure of any such

information found at the hands of the committee. It is also

noticeable that the Hon’ble Division Bench, in

W.A.No.686/2020, dated 04.03.2021, held that it is true that

Bye-law 36.1 provides for the punishment for using unfair

means. However, it was held that the respondent Board has

not been able to make out a case that the student has used

the mobile phone while giving the examination, therefore,

this Court can safely arrive at a conclusion that the student

was negligent in carrying a mobile phone to the examination

centre, but as the mobile phone was not used at all, the

punishment awarded has rightly been set aside by the

learned Single Judge. The respondent - CBSE has accepted

the orders passed in the case of Shuchi Mishra (supra).

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in

contending that in Category-I, Clause 1.5, the guidelines

allowed benefit of doubt to be given to such students against

whom no evidence is available to testify to foul intents on

their parts even when the student is found possessing

copying material (hard copy etc.,), but have not used the

same. Although, a challenge is raised to Category–III (new),

on the ground of discrimination when compared to Category-

I, nevertheless, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner, it would suffice to read down the said

categorization, extending the benefit of doubt to the

petitioner.

11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the petitioner herein should also get similar

benefit, on parity, with that of Shuchi Mishra (supra).

12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

order at Annexure-A dated 28.05.2025 is hereby quashed

and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to

announce the results of all the papers written by the

petitioner and issue the statement of marks and the

certificate to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and

at any rate within a period of one week from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

- 7 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

Ordered accordingly.

13. Pending Interlocutory Application stands disposed of."

5.

It is the contention of the appellants that as per the relevant

Bye-Laws, the possession of the mobile phone falls under "Unfair

Means Category - 3" and the stipulated penalty was the

cancellation of current as well as next year's examination in full

with the student being entitled to take the examination in all

subjects thereafter. It is contented that the petitioner having

admittedly carried the mobile phone, the imposition of punishment

by CBSE was just and proper. Further, CBSE sought to distinguish

the case of Shuchi Mishra (supra) from the facts of the present

case.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1

justified the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. Before considering the contentions put forth by the parties,

it is relevant to notice the relevant Bye-Laws.

8. CBSE was constituted under the Government Resol ution

dated 01.07.1929. Clause 18 of the Government Reso lution

empowered the Board to make Bye-Laws consistent w ith the

Government Resolution. The Examination Bye-Laws of CBSE

- 8 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

were made effective from 31.01.1995. Bye-Law No.36 stipulates

the Rules for UFM.

Bye-Law No.36.1[iv] reads as under:-

"(iv) If during the course of examination, a candidate is

found indulging in any of the following, he/she shall be

deemed to have used unfair means at the examinations,

and as such his/her result shall not be declared but shall

be marked as UNFAIR MEANS (UFM.):

(a) having in possession papers, books, notes or any

other material or information relevant to the examination

in the paper concerned;

(b) giving or receiving assistance directly or indirectly of

any kind or attempting to do so;

(c) writing questions or answers on any material other

than the answer book given by the Centre

Superintendent for writing answers;

(d) tearing of any page of the answer book or

supplementary answer book etc.;

(e) contacting or communicating or trying to do so with

any person, other than the Examination Staff, during the

examination time in the examination centre;

(f) taking away the answer book out of the examination

hall/room;

(g) using or attempting to use any other undesirable

method or means in connection with the examination;

(h) smuggling out Question Paper or its part; or

smuggling out answer book/supplementary answer

sheet or part thereof; and

(i) threatening any of the officials connected with the

conduct of the examinations or threatening of any of the

candidates."

- 9 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

9. Bye-Law No.36.1(v) stipulates the punishment for a

candidate found guilty of using unfair means. The said Bye-Law

No.36.1(v) reads as under:-

"(v) A candidate found guilty of any of the unfair means

mentioned at (iv) above:-

(a) may be disqualified by the Board from the

examination in that year (i.e. his/her examination for that

year may be cancelled;

(b) may further be debarred from appearing at any

examination of the Board for a period which may extend

upto five years; and

(c) in serious cases, may permanently be debarred from

taking any examination of the Board."

10. Bye-Law No.36.1(iv) stipulates that having possession of

papers, books, notes or any other material or information relevant

to the examination, shall be declared as UFM. Sub-clause (g) also

stipulates attempting to use any undesirable method also

constitutes UFM. The punishments for the UFMs detailed in Bye-

Law No.36.1(iv) are set out in Bye-Law No.36.1(v).

11.

Regulations 36(iv) of the examination Bye-Law relating to

unfair means were amended pursuant to the decision of the

examination committee held on 06.02.2018, which was approved

by the governing body on 17.12.2018. The relevant extract of the

amended Rule No.36(v) is as under

:-

- 10 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

Existing Rule 36(iv) Amended Rule 36(v)

a) Having in possession any item

or article which has been

prohibited in examination centre or

may be used for unfair practices

including any stationery item,

communication device,

accessories, eatable items,

ornaments or any other material or

information relevant or not relevant

to the examination in the paper

concerned;

*****

(n) Use or attempted use of any

electronic device after entering the

examination center;

12. Bye-Law No. 34.4 of the Regulations stipulates that the

Controller of Examinations, with the approval of the Chairman can

issue guidelines for adherence by Centre Superintendents, Deputy

Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents. Accordingly, vide

communication dt. 09.02.2024, the Controller of Examinations of

CBSE, issued Guidelines, whereunder, the procedure and the rules

for dealing with UFM cases were stipulated. UFM cases were

demarcated into 5 categories and punishments were stipulated for

each Category. Category - 3.4 pertains to the use of electronic

devices other than mobile phone and is relevant for the present

case. The relevant extract of the said Category - 3.4 is as follows:

- 11 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

"3.4. Possession, use or attempted use of any

electronic device (other than Mobile Phone), which

can be used as communication device, after entering

the examination centre.

Supported by report of invigilator/checking staff."

13. The punishments stipulated for UFM stipulated in Category

- 3 is as under:-

"Cancellation of current as well as next year's

examination in all subjects.

Shall have to take the examination in all subjects

thereafter."

14. It is noticed that the guidelines which have categorised the

cases of UFM into 5 categories, Category - 3.4 specifically

stipulates that "possession, use or attempt to use of any electronic

device other than mobile phones" would be a UFM and the

punishment for the Category - 3 is cancellation of the current as

well as the next year's examination in all subjects.

15. In the 139

th

Governing Body Meeting of CBSE held on

24.06.2024, the recommendation of the Examination Committee to

modify the existing guidelines in respect of the use of mobile

phones during Board examination was examined and ratified by the

Governing Body. The relevant extract of the proposal which was

ratified is as under:

- 12 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

"Background

The Committee members were informed that the

rules formulated by CBSE for dealing with Unfair

Means cases and Imposition of penalties prescribed

following penalties for the under mentioned act of

Unfair Means:

Act of Unfair Means: Penalties

Category 1-

Having copying material (hard copy

and Mobile Phone etc.) in his/her

possession but did not use it,

Supported by report of

invigilator/checking staff

Cancellation of current

examination in the Concerned

subject. Shall be allowed to take

of the examination in that subject

in the Compartment examination,

if otherwise eligible. The benefit of

doubt shall be given to such

student against whom no

evidence is available to testify to

the foul intents on their part.

Category 3-

Possession, Use or attempted use

of any electronic device (other than

mobile phone), which can be in

used as communication device,

after entering the examination

centre. Supported by report of

invigilator/checking staff

Cancellation of current as well as

next year's examination in full

subjects. Shall have to take the

examination in full subjects

thereafter.

As per the above provisions copying material (chit

etc.) and mobile phone etc. have been given equal

status and placed under category 1 with fewer

quanta of penalties, whereas use of other electronic

devices has been placed under category 3 with

more severe penalties. This distinction in quantum

of penalties vis-à-vis mobile phone/electronic

device seems unreasonable. It is pertinent to

mention that mobile phone is an electronic device

used for communicating i.e. used for sending and

receiving photo copy, picture etc. If a mobile is

found in possession of a candidate during the

examination, in such cases, there is a high degree

- 13 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

of risk involved on leakage of question papers and

sabotage of examination.

The risk can be managed by placing mobile phone

and other electronic devices on equal footing and

same type of penalty may be prescribed for

possession or use of both the devices during

examination.

The members were informed that possession or

use of mobile phone and other electronic

device shall be put in same category 3 with same

severe penalties of cancellation of current as well

as next year's examination in full subjects. The

candidate shall have to take the examination in full

subjects thereafter. Before examination, Public

Notice in newspaper may be given.

The Examination Committee agreed to modify

penalties under UFM category as proposed.

Parents should ensure that the child shall not bring

mobile phone at examination centre.

Decision

The Governing body ratified the recommendations

of Examination Committee."

16. The amendments to Bye-Law No.36.1(iv) of the

Examination Bye-Laws, which were approved by the governing

body on 17.12.2018 stipulated that "use or the attempted to use of

any electronic device after entering the examination centre" would

be a UFM. In the General Body Meeting held on 24.06.2024, the

rules formulated for dealing with UFM cases and imposition of

penalties were modified whereunder, Category - 1 contemplated

"having copying material (hard copy and mobile phones, etc.,) in

- 14 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

his/her possession but, did not use it, supported by a report of the

invigilator/checking staff". The said Category - 1 act would incur a

penalty of cancellation of current examination in the concerned

subject and the candidate shall be allowed to take the examination

in that subject in the compartment examination, if otherwise

eligible. It was further specifically stipulated that "benefit of doubt"

shall be given to such student against whom no evidence is

available to testify the foul intent on their part. In the said

modification, Category - 3 stipulated "possession, use or attempt to

use of any electronic device (other than mobile phone)". The

minutes of the said meeting would indicate that copying material

like chit, etc., and mobile phone have been given equal status

under Category - 1 with a fewer quantum of penalties, whereas use

of other electronic devices have been placed under Category - 3

with more severe penalties. It was felt that the distinction in the

quantum of penalties vis-à-vis mobile phones/electronic devices

seems unreasonable. Since mobile phone is an electronic device,

which can be used for communicating and it involved a high degree

of risk of leakage of question papers and sabotaging of the

examination, mobile phone and other electronic devices were

placed on equal footage and were put in Category - 3 with severe

- 15 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

penalties of cancellation of the current as well as next year's

examination in all/full subjects.

17. A communication dated 20.01.2025 was addressed by

CBSE to various institutions whereunder, the newly added

provisions of the UFM Rules were highlighted which is as under:

Act of Unfair Means Implemented Penalties

Category-3 (New)

(i) Possession, Use or attempted

use of any Electronic Device

(including Mobile Phone), which

can be in used as communication

device, after entering the

Examination Centre. Supported by

report of Invigilator/Checking staff

(ii) Students indulging in spreading

rumours affecting smooth conduct

of examinations.

Cancellation of current as well as

next year's examination in full

subjects and shall eligible to

write/have/take the Examination in

Full Subjects thereafter.

18. In the communication dated 20.01.2025 which pertains to

the date of the incident in question, "possession, use or attempt to

use (including mobile phones)......." was stipulated in Category - 3

and penalty to be imposed was cancellation of the current as well

as the next year's examination in all/full subjections.

19. In the present case, the relevant extract of the report of the

committee which had enquired into the incident pertains to the

petitioner, is as under:-

- 16 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

1 Bengaluru

12

18622034

BL-A 0523413

BL-A 0523475

DONTHI

SAATVIK REDDY

DONTHI

SRINATH

REDDY

DONTHI

SINDHURA

048/PHYSICAL

EDUCATION

17/02/2025

831323/SHRI

RAM GLOBAL

SCHOOL

BOMMENAHALLI

BANGALORE

45551/NEW

BALDWIN INT

RESI SCHOOL

MANDUR

BANGALORE

Brief of incident:

Student was caught with a

mobile phone in the

examination hall by the

invigilator. The mobile was

found after the candidate

went for Washroom. Student

was not copying with the

help of mobile phone. Details

of Examination Centre and

Student School are as under:

Centre No: 831323 - Shri

Ram Global School

Bommanahalli Bangalore.

School No: 45551 - New

Baldwin Int. Res. School

Mandur Bangalore.

Evidence collected:

Mobile Phone, Statement of

Invigilators, Statement of

Observer, Statement of

Student and Report of CS.

Student's statement before

committee:

Candidate agreed that he

was in the possession of the

Mobile when the invigilators

caught him. The mobile was

available with him but he

didn't use for copying.

Observations of committee:

The Committee interacted

with the above Candidate

and inquired into the matter

and came into conclusion

that, though the Candidate

had the Mobile during the

Examination, but there is no

proof that he has used the

same for the purpose of

Para 3.4

under

clause 6.4

of Centre

Guidelines.

- 17 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

copying/malpractice. As per

Candidate's submission he

had the Mobile with him by

mistake. The Subject Expert inspected the Mobile phone

in person and reported on

dated: 04.04.2025 that no

relevant material pertaining

to the subject was found.

Again, in the report of Centre

Superintendent on the day of

Examination i.e., 17.02.2025,

it is evident that the

Candidate didn't copy any

answers in the Answer Book

from the Mobile. The

Committee is under the

impression that the

Candidate has not copied

anything from the mobile in

the Answer Book.

(emphasis supplied)

20. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner had sought for striking

down of Category - 3 (New) as mentioned in the communication

dated 20.01.2025 as being an unfair means of categorisation

guidelines. In the alternative, it was sought that the same be read

down to expand the benefit of doubt to be given to the student

against whom no evidence is available to testify to the foul intent on

their part.

21. The learned Single Judge had accepted the contention of

the writ petitioner that in Category - 1, clause 1.5, the guidelines

allowed benefit of doubt to be given to students against whom no

- 18 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

evidence is available to testify to foul intents on their part even

when the student is found possessing copying material. That the

stipulations contained in Category - 3 are to be read down to

extend the benefit of doubt as provided in Category - 1. The

learned Single Judge also granted the relief to the writ petitioner on

the ground of parity, having regard to the judgment of another

learned Single Judge in Shuchi Mishra (supra).

22. It is pertinent to note that the judgment of the learned Single

Judge in the case of Shuchi Mishra (supra) was challenged by

CBSE before a Coordinate Bench of this Court being Writ Appeal

No.686/2020. The said writ appeal was dismissed by judgment

dated 04.03.2021. In the said appeal, it was held that it was not

made out that the student was using the mobile phone while giving

the examination. Further, it was noticed that "mere possession of

a mobile that too when the student has not taken it inside the

examination room, will not make the student liable for punishment

under the bye-laws".

23. The case of Shuchi Mishra (supra) pertains to a fact

situation wherein, the student had "unmindfully carried her mobile

phone to the examination hall, which was voluntarily handed over

to the invigilator before the commencement of the examination". It

- 19 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

was held that the student had used unfair means and her exam in

the subject of Biology was cancelled. The learned Single Judge

while noticing Bye-Law No.36.1(iv) and 36.1(v) of the Regulations

set aside the order of CBSE imposing the punishment. It is

pertinent to note that the incident in the case of Shuchi Mishra

(supra) occurred on 14.03.2020 prior to the guidelines whereunder,

the procedure and rules for dealing with UFM were issued on

09.02.2024. As on the date when Shuchi Mishra (supra) was

decided, the categorization of cases of UFM in the five different

categories was not available. Hence, it cannot be stated that the

writ petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition by

virtue of parity.

24. With regard to the relief sought for by the writ petitioner in

the writ petition to either strike down Category - 3 of the UFM

guidelines or the said categorisation be read down to extend the

benefit of doubt to students against whom no evidence is available,

the said aspect was the subject matter of discussion in the 139

th

meeting of the Governing Body held on 24.06.2024 (the relevant

extract of which has been noticed at para 15 supra). In the said

meeting, the aspect of a student being in possession of copying

material including mobile phones, but not using the same,

- 20 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

being prescribed in Category - 1 with a lenient punishment, while

the use of electronic devices which was prescribed in Category - 3

with a more stringent punishment was noticed and discussed. The

General Body accepted the recommendation made by th e

Examination Committee, which opined that the distinction in the

quantum of penalties vis-à-vis mobile phones/electronic devices

was unreasonable. This was due to the fact that the mobile phone

is an electronic device used for communicating and if a mobile

phone is found in possession of a candidate during the

examination, there is a high degree of risk involved in leakage of

question papers and sabotaging of examinations.

25. CBSE has contented that the guidelines with regard to UFM

have also been communicated to students and in the Admission

Card issued by CBSE to the students for the examinations, the

instructions are set out, which specifically stipulate that "mobile and

other communication devices are not allowed inside the

examination center".

26. In this context, the observations of the Committee (which

has been extracted at para 19 herein above) indicate that the

Committee had opined that the candidate had not copied anything

from the mobile in the answer sheet. Pursuant to the decision of

- 21 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

the Governing Body in the 139

th

Meeting held on 24.06.2024, even

the possession of the mobile phone has been stipulated as a

Category - 3 offence.

27. The thrust of the case of the petitioner is that there is no

material on record to indicate that the petitioner had used the

mobile phone.

28. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also states that it

has been specifically averred in the writ petition that the petitioner

is a meritorious student having secured 92% in CBSE 10

th

Board

Exam in the Academic Year 2022-2023. That the petitioner has

been declared successful in the IIT - JEE Advanced Examination

published on 02.06.2025. It was also pointed out that specific

averments were made in the writ petition that the invigilator found

the phone in the pocket of the student 25 minutes into the

examination and after the seizure of the phone and no incriminating

material having been found in the phone, the petitioner was given a

fresh question paper and answer sheet and was permitted to write

the examination. That the petitioner wrote and completed the

examination in 1 hour 40 minutes, although the allotted time was 3

hours, as 1 hour 20 minutes was spent in enquiry, checking and

observing all other formalities. It was also pointed out that the

- 22 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

petitioner was also permitted to take all other examinations. That

the said factual aspects have not been contested by CBSE either in

the statement of objections filed before the learned Single Judge or

in the memorandum of appeal.

29. In the statement of objections filed before the learned

Single Judge it is stated that after the report of the incident in

question from the Examination Centre, respondent Nos.1 and 3 in

the writ petition (CBSE and the Controller of Examination)

constituted an Unfair Means Committee comprising o f four

members i.e., Principal as well as the Deputy Commissioner of

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan as also the Regional Officer and the

Under Secretary of CBSE, Regional Office, Bengaluru. It is further

stated that based on the observations of the Committee, the

petitioner was placed in Category - 3. It is further stated that the

penalty under Category - 3 is cancellation of the current as well as

next year's examination in full and eligible to write/have the right to

take examinations in full thereafter. It was also averred that the

penalty is imposed in accordance with clause 36.1(v)(a) and (b).

30. It is forthcoming that after the petitioner appeared before

the Committee constituted by CBSE, CBSE by its communication

dated 28.05.2026 (which is impugned in the writ petition) intimated

- 23 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

respondent No.2/institution regarding the enquiry conducted as well

as the punishment imposed. By the said communication, it is

stated that pursuant to that report of the Committee, the competent

authority has placed the case of the petitioner under UFM Category

- 3 and imposed a penalty of cancellation of current as well as the

next year's examination in all subjects and allowing the petitioner to

be eligible to take the examination in all subjects thereafter.

Hence, it is clear that the punishment imposed is in terms of the

punishment stipulated under Category - 3 pursuant to the

procedure and rules laid down by the Controller of Examinations for

dealing with UFM. Although, CBSE has stated in its statement of

objections that the penalty is imposed in accordance with clause

36.1(v)(a) and (b) of the Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, the

impugned communication does not refer to the Examination Bye-

Laws.

31. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner is justified in

contending that the factual matrix points to a situation wherein, the

mobile phone has not been used by the petitioner. However, the

relief sought for in the writ petition, which has been granted by the

learned Single Judge of reading down the categorization to expand

the benefit of doubt to be given to the student against whom no

- 24 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

evidence is available to testify the foul play, is not liable to be

granted. This is in view of the aspect regarding the specific

circumstance of a student having copying material (including

mobile phone), which was mentioned in Category - I with a lenient

view, whereas the use of mobile phone/electronic device was

mentioned in Category - 3 with a severe penalty, was the subject

matter of discussion in 139

th

General Body Meeting of CBSE held

on 24.06.2024. The General Body Meeting accepted th e

recommendation of the Examination Committee to modify the

existing guidelines. As a result of the same, even mere possession

of a mobile phone has been mentioned in Category - 3, which

prescribes a stringent penalty, which has been done in the present

case. The said aspect having been proposed, discussed and

ratified by an expert body, this Court, substituting its opinion with

that of the expert body does not arise. 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.

32. The fervent plea put forth by the learned counsel for the writ

petitioner not to interfere with the impugned order granting the

- 25 -

WA No. 1532 of 2025

reliefs sought for in the writ petition, is not liable to be accepted

having regard to the ratification made in the 139

th

General Body

Meeting of CBSE on 24.06.2024 as has been noticed above.

33. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the contention

put forth by CBSE in the present appeal is required to be accepted.

34. Accordingly, the above appeal is allowed and the impugned

order is set aside.

35. All pending applications are also disposed of.

Sd/-

(VIBHU BAKHRU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(C.M. POONACHA)

JUDGE

Vmb/BS/nd