MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Stays Karnataka Half-Yearly Board Exam Results, Questions State's Motives

21 October 2024 3:57 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Today, On October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of India halted the declaration of results for the half-yearly board exams conducted in Karnataka schools, raising concerns about the State’s decision to introduce such exams. The bench, consisting of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, questioned the Karnataka government’s motives, expressing worries about the pressure this initiative places on students.
During the proceedings, Justice Bela M. Trivedi strongly criticized the State for pushing forward with the exams, stating:
"Why is the State pushing towards harassment of students? In none of the states such attitude is there. Only in Karnataka. What is the pressure on the State?"
Justice Sharma also questioned the necessity of these exams, remarking:
"There is no such half-yearly board exam in my State. This cannot happen. If you are really wishing for betterment of students, then open good schools and more where teaching and education is at best. Why are you doing all of this? Somebody is definitely making it an ego issue."
    The case stems from a Supreme Court stay order in April 2024, which paused the implementation of a Karnataka High Court ruling that had allowed the State to conduct "board exams" for classes 5, 8, 9, and 11 in schools affiliated with the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board (KSEAB). The High Court had dismissed challenges to the exams, accepting the State’s argument that they were assessment mechanisms rather than formal board exams.
However, the Supreme Court intervened following appeals from the Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka and others, who argued that these exams placed undue stress on students.
Partial Withdrawal of Notifications, But Incomplete Compliance
During the hearing, the Karnataka government informed the Supreme Court that it had withdrawn notifications for holding these board exams in three rural districts. However, the appellants, represented by advocates KV Dhananjay, A Velan, Ananya Krishna, Sainath DM, and Dheeraj SJ, pointed out that the withdrawal was incomplete. They noted that the notifications had been withdrawn in only seven districts and that exams for tenth standard students remained unaffected.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the selective withdrawal and questioned why this information had not been presented earlier, particularly since 24 districts were still subject to the exam orders.
The Karnataka government defended its decision by citing a drop in student performance as the rationale for introducing these half-yearly board exams. The State argued that the exams were necessary to assess and improve student outcomes. The government indicated that it would file a counter affidavit to explain its reasoning in more detail.
Following the hearing, the Supreme Court issued an interim order staying the declaration of results for the half-yearly board exams conducted for classes 8, 9, and 10 in any district of Karnataka. The Bench gave the State time to submit its counter affidavit and further justification for the exams.
"We direct the respondent shall not declare the results of half-yearly board exams taken of 8th, 9th, and 10th, if taken, for any of the districts of the State till further orders," the Court ordered.
The Supreme Court’s stay on the exam results halts Karnataka’s attempt to implement board-style assessments mid-year, with the Court raising concerns about the stress on students and the lack of transparency in the State's decision. The matter will now proceed as the Court examines the government's justification for the exams and the impact on students across the State.

Date of Decision: October 21, 2024
Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka v. State of Karnataka and Others

 

Latest Legal News