Karnataka Government Files Review Petition Against High Court SSLC Order
The Karnataka state government has formally submitted a review petition before the Karnataka High Court, challenging its April 15 order. This order mandated that the evaluation of the SSLC (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) examination for the third language must be conducted strictly according to the existing rules, which utilize a marks-based system, rather than transitioning to a grading system as proposed.
Key Arguments in the Government's Petition
The review petition is expected to be heard by the court on Tuesday. In its filing, the state government has presented several critical arguments. It asserts that the original petitioners—three students who appeared for the SSLC exam—withheld crucial material facts from the court. Specifically, they did not disclose that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the identical issue, which relied on the same news report concerning a statement by the School Education Minister, was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court on April 10. This dismissal included an imposition of costs amounting to Rs 1 lakh.
Furthermore, the government contends that the petitioners failed to inform the court about the April 10 notification. This notification published draft rules intended to amend the existing regulations to adopt a grading system for third language subjects under the National Scheme Qualification Framework (NSQF), with implementation scheduled to begin from the 2025-26 SSLC examination cycle.
Rationale Behind the Grading System Proposal
The review petition elaborates on the government's rationale for advocating the grading system. It states that the adoption of grading was primarily aimed at reducing examination-related stress among students and establishing a more equitable academic environment. The goal is to create a level playing field that bridges the educational gap between urban and rural students, ensuring fair assessment standards across diverse demographics.
The petition highlights that the petitioners neither legally challenged the validity of the April 10 notification nor brought this significant regulatory development to the court's attention during the initial proceedings.
Legal and Regulatory Override Concerns
Additionally, the government has argued a point of legal precedence. It maintains that the petitioners cannot insist on adherence to an earlier circular dated October 28, 2025, because the finalization of the draft rules notified on April 10 would legally supersede and override that circular. This establishes a clear hierarchy in regulatory authority.
Context of NSQF Subjects
The petition provides important context regarding the NSQF subjects involved. These subjects, which include Automobile, Information Technology, Electronics, Beauty and Wellness, Apparels, and Retails, have been offered as alternatives to the third language for over a decade. The government clarifies that, similar to the third language, these NSQF subjects are to be recorded as additional subjects on the marks card. Crucially, they are not to be considered for determining pass or fail status, effective from the 2025-26 academic year onward.
Background of the Original Petition
The case originated when the three SSLC students approached the High Court. They expressed apprehension regarding remarks made by the Education Minister about introducing a grading system in the SSLC examinations. In response, Justice ES Indiresh disposed of the petition by directing the concerned authorities to conduct the evaluation strictly in accordance with the rules that were prevailing on the date the SSLC exam was officially notified.
In his ruling, Justice Indiresh invoked a fundamental legal principle, stating it is a "well-settled principle in law that there shall not be any change in the rules of the game midway." This underscores the importance of consistency and predictability in examination regulations once the process has commenced.
