CUTTACK: In a significant judgement, the Orissa High Court on Monday came down heavily on the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for branding 72 Class XII students of two schools in Bargarh and Padampur as having adopted ‘Unfair Means’ (UFM) during the 2025 board examinations without following due process.
Delivering the verdict on a batch of 15 petitions filed by the 72 students, Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad held that the CBSE’s actions were in breach of its own examination bylaws and principles of natural justice, thereby severely affecting the academic future of the petitioners.
However, acknowledging the gravity of maintaining examination integrity, Justice Shripad did not direct CBSE to release the results outright. Instead, it ordered a fresh inquiry, calling it a ‘golden balance’ between the students’ rights and academic fairness.
The students approached the court after their results were withheld, unlike others whose marks were published on May 26. CBSE alleged mass-copying in the examination centres concerned, and defended its actions, citing unavailability of full CCTV footage and invoking ‘exceptional circumstances’ to bypass Bye-Law 36, which outlines procedures and penalties in malpractice cases.
However, the court found no convincing basis for such deviation. “After all, an exception to the rule does not fall from the sky. It should arise at least by a reasonable interpretative process and in this case it has not arisen even by inference,” Justice Shripad observed, stressing that CBSE could not unilaterally ignore established procedures without clear justification.
Citing Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the court emphasised that principles of natural justice are fundamental. Drawing a powerful analogy, Justice Shripad remarked, “When God himself is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve for consuming the proscribed fruit in the Eden Garden, mortals like the CBSE authorities and others could not have unilaterally decided something stigmatic not only to the young minds like the petitioners but to the agony of their parents.”
The judgement criticised the schools involved for failing to preserve CCTV footage as mandated. “No plausible explanation is offered... mere suspension [of principals] is highly insufficient,” the court observed.