Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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