Karnataka High Court Upholds SSLC Exam Valuation Order, Rejects State's Review Plea
In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court delivered a major setback to the state government on Tuesday by firmly declining to review its earlier order from April 15. This order had explicitly directed authorities to conduct the valuation of the recently held Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) examinations strictly in accordance with the rules that were in force at the time.
Court Finds No Error in Original Judgment
Justice ES Indiresh, presiding over the hearing, listened attentively to arguments presented by Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty representing the state and counsel for the petitioner-students. After thorough consideration, Justice Indiresh concluded that there exists no apparent error in the April 15 order that would warrant a review. Consequently, the court expressed its clear disinclination to revisit or alter the original judgment.
The judge provided detailed reasoning, noting that the notification concerning draft rules—specifically the Karnataka Secondary Examination Board First (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2026—was officially published on April 10. This date fell well after the completion of the SSLC exams on April 2. At the time the original writ petition filed by students was disposed of, there was practically no rule promulgated by the competent authority that had come into force.
Modifications to the Order and Government's Rights
However, Justice Indiresh did agree to curtail a specific portion of paragraph 8 from the April 15 order. This section had stated that "any subsequent modification is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The Advocate General argued that this phrasing could adversely affect the state government's rights, and the judge concurred, making the necessary adjustment.
The court clarified that it remains always open for the government to modify rules, provided such changes are made in accordance with established law and proper procedures. This clarification ensures that while the current valuation must proceed under old rules, future adjustments are not precluded.
Arguments and Concerns During the Hearing
During the proceedings, the Advocate General highlighted that the petitioners had relied on a newspaper article quoting the Minister for Primary and Secondary Education. He pointed out that this statement was already the subject of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, where the High Court had imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioners involved.
The AG further contended that the proposed grading system was contemplated because a large number of students, particularly from rural areas, were found to be failing in the subject in question. At this juncture, Justice Indiresh posed a critical question to the government: "Whether the government wanted to bring about this change so that all the students could pass?"
The judge expressed additional concerns regarding the potential impact on students who have Kannada as their third language. He warned that if the marks system is replaced by a grading system, these students might not study the subject with the necessary seriousness. "If you ask those students to list the Jnanpith awardees of Kannada, they may include Pampa and Ranna (10th century poets) in the said list," Justice Indiresh remarked, illustrating the possible dilution of academic rigor.
Petitioners' Stance on Academic Competition
On their part, counsel for the petitioners submitted compelling arguments that doing away with the marks system would severely hamper the chances of students aiming to secure higher marks in their third language. This, in turn, could negatively affect their overall ranks in the SSLC examination, potentially disadvantaging those striving for academic excellence and competitive edge.
Background of the April 15 Order
To provide context, on April 15, the High Court had directed the concerned authorities to evaluate the recently conducted SSLC examinations in strict accordance with the rules that were in force on the date the notification for the 2025-26 academic year was issued. This directive aimed to ensure consistency and fairness, preventing last-minute changes that could disrupt the evaluation process.
The court's latest decision reinforces the principle of legal certainty and procedural integrity in educational assessments, emphasizing that rules cannot be altered retroactively to the detriment of students who have already completed their examinations under a specific set of guidelines.
