Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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