As per case facts, a student was penalized for possessing a mobile phone during an examination, despite no evidence of its use for copying. The Central Board of Secondary Education ... (CBSE) imposed a penalty under "Unfair Means Category - 3," cancelling current and next year's exams. The student challenged this, and a Single Judge set aside the penalty, citing a previous case and extending the benefit of doubt. The reason for this Writ Appeal by CBSE to the High Court was to challenge the Single Judge's order, arguing that the new guidelines specifically classify mere mobile phone possession as a severe offense. The question arose whether the Single Judge could read down the UFM guidelines to give the benefit of doubt against an expert body's ratified decision. Finally, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order. It ruled that judicial intervention to dilute an expert body's specific classification of mobile phone possession as a Category - 3 offense under revised guidelines was not warranted, distinguishing the previous judgment due to updated rules.