Partly allowed

Amiya Kumar Sahu v. Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Orissa HC15 Sept 2025WP(C)/15942/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CBSE withheld Class-X/XII results on unfair-means allegations amid mass-copying, breaching its Bye-Law 36 procedure and natural justice. The High Court quashed the impugned decisions and directed a fresh inquiry under Bye-Law 36 within two weeks, deprecating schools' failure to preserve CCTV footage.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing impugned UFM decisions; Writ of Mandamus directing CBSE to hold fresh inquiry under Bye-Law 36 with opportunity to petitioners, completed within two weeks.

Amiya Kumar Sahu Vs Central Board of Secondary… — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) Nos.19941, 15942, 16032, 16041, 16045,

¶3

16197, 16697, 16970, 16972, 17033, 17036, 17055,

¶4

17189, 17272 & 17569 of 2025.

¶5

In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India

¶6

Oum Sai Avatar

¶7

(In W.P.(C) No.19941 of 2025) Amiya Kumar Sahu & others (In W.P.(C) No.15942 of 2025) Akash Chhatar & others (In W.P.(C) No.16032 of 2025) Nihareeka Barik & others (In W.P.(C) No.16041 of 2025) Subham Sahu & others (In W.P.(C) No.16045 of 2025) Arya Adyasha Sahu (In W.P.(C) No.16197 of 2025) Barsha Ranee Behera (In W.P.(C) No.16697 of 2025) Shruti Padhan (In W.P.(C) No.16970 of 2025) Baby Padhan (In W.P.(C) No.16972 of 2025) Bhishma Benia (In W.P.(C) No.17033 of 2025) Arpita Priyadarsini Panda (In W.P.(C) No.17036 of 2025)

¶8

Page 1 of 9

¶9

Biswajit Thakur (In W.P.(C) No.17055 of 2025) Archana Sahu (In W.P.(C) No.17189 of 2025) Piyush Agrawal (In W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2025) Sangita Gingira (In W.P.(C) No.17569 of 2025) …. Petitioners -Versus…. Central Board of Secondary Education Opp. Parties & others

¶10

Advocates appeared in these cases:

¶11

For Petitioners : M/s. K.K. Swain, K. Swain, J.R. Khuntia, P.N. Mohanty, U.R. Chhotray & S.C.D. Dash, Advocates in W.P.(C) Nos.19941, 16697, 16970, 16972, 17033, 17036, 17055, 17189, 17272 & 17569 of 2025 Mr. S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate M/s. S.S. Pradhan, S.S. Roul, S.K. Mishra & B.P. Pradhan, Advocates in W.P.(C) Nos.15942, 16032, 16041, 16045 & 16197 of 2025 For Opp. Parties : Mr. T.N. Pattanayak, Advocate for CBSE

¶12

Page 2 of 9

¶13

Mr. S. Jena, Advocate for OP No.3 in W.P.(C) Nos.15942, 16032 & 16045 of 2025.

¶14

Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Advocate for OP No.3 in W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2025.

¶15

CORAM:

¶16

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

¶19

Date of hearing & judgment : 15.09.2025

¶20

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J .

¶21

All these petitioners appeared in the Board of Secondary School Certificate Examination2025 (Class-X/Class-XII) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), a registered Society, which regulates & supervises inter alia the conduct of such examinations periodically & on regular basis. Results of petitioners have not been announced on the ground that they had adopted “UNFAIR MEANS” (UFM), although results of other candidates have been webhosted on 26.05.2025. Aggrieved thereby, they are complaining before the Writ Court.

¶22

2. Submissions made on behalf of petitioners :

¶23

Page 3 of 9

¶24

(i) The action of the Board in treating the case of petitioners as of UFM, being unilateral, is contrary to law, facts & evidence borne out by record. There is a gross violation of principles of natural justice to the prejudice of petitioners.

¶25

(ii) There is absolutely no reason or rhyme to attribute the stigma of UFM and thereby interdict the movement of petitioners to the next level, and that the action has caused a great loss of valuable academic period.

¶26

(iii) The CBSE has promulgated Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, as amended till January, 2013; Bye-Law 36 prescribes the procedure for treating the cases of malpractice & of unfair means, which has been breached to the core, sans justification.

¶27

(iv) Even if petitioners are failed in one of the six subjects, they are entitled to be promoted to the next higher level, the prescribed minimum passing of papers being five, and this aspect of the matter has not been considered in the impugned orders.

¶28

3. Submissions on behalf of CBSE :

¶29

(i) Regardless of the text of the impugned orders, the factual back-ground of all these cases is one of mass-copying/malpractice

¶30

Page 4 of 9

¶31

and the authorities, having looked into all aspects of the matter, have taken the impugned decisions, which cannot be faltered.

¶32

(ii) The Schools concerned having not preserved CC Camera

¶33

footage fully, the authorities had a great disadvantage and that by employing their expertise in the matter, the impugned decisions have been taken and therefore, this Court should readily grant interference in a matter which is essentially academic.

¶34

(iii) The question of following principles of natural justice in matters like this is nearly impossible, regard being had to nature of the examination and numerical strength of the examinees. Since matter was very serious, Principals of two Schools have been suspended in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry.

¶35

(iv) The provisions of Bye-Law 36 are only in the nature of guidelines and case of the petitioners apparently falling in the exceptional circumstances, adherence to this Bye-Law has been dispensed with in the special & peculiar fact matrix.

¶36

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers and also having adverted to rulings

¶37

Page 5 of 9

¶38

cited at the Bar, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:-

¶39

4.1. The CBSE Bye-Laws make abundant provision and prescribe a due procedure for treating cases of Unfair Means/Malpractice, is not disputed. When there is mass-copying or other malpractice, the provisions of Bye-Law 36 come into play. This Bye-Law prescribes the penalty also to the errant students. They employ mandatory terminology. Therefore, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners are right in telling that the breach of these ByeLaws would render the impugned decisions vulnerable for challenge. The contention of CBSE panel counsel, that every rule has an exception, has not been demonstrated from the text or context of Bye-Laws. Unless law indicates the exception, it is ordinarily impermissible to contend that the case falls in the class of exception. 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.

¶40

4.2. Learned advocates appearing for the petitioners are more than justified in submitting that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for not following the principles of natural justice at least as the minimum requirement of fair play. On what basis the

¶41

Page 6 of 9

¶42

conclusion of culpability is arrived at, is also not forthcoming. It is true, as contended by learned panel counsel that the principles of natural justice are not an unruly horse that would run amok. But what heavens were falling down for taking the impugned decisions as a knee jerk reaction, remains inscrutable, despite turning the pages of petition papers. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the principles of natural justice are treated as a part of Articles 14 & 21. For one who contends for exclusion of these principles, the burden is heavy and that has not been discharged in this case. 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 OPs could not have unilaterally decided something stigmatic not only to the young minds like the petitioners but to the agony of their parents.

¶43

4.3. The above being said, now what relief needs to be accorded to the petitioners, is a matter of pragmatism: Counsel for the petitioners seek invalidation of the impugned orders coupled with a direction for announcement of results, as if nothing has not happened. This is on the one extreme. The panel counsel appearing for the CBSE seeks dismissal of these petitions insisting upon the petitioners to write the ensuing examination,

¶44

Page 7 of 9

¶45

supplementary or otherwise afresh. This is on the other extreme. Justice of the case warrants the pendulum to stop somewhere in between. A direction for fresh inquiry would strike the golden balance between these two extremes for the purpose of maintaining purity in the examination process and justice to the students. This view gains support from the Apex Court decisions in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India , (2024) 2 SCC L&S) 344 & Rajesh Kumar v. The Institute of Engineers (India) , 1997 SUPP. (3) SCR 90.

¶46

4.4. This Court deprecates the act of OP-Schools in not preserving the CC Camera footage of the examination process for a minimum period of two months following their completion, despite CBSE Circulars making it mandatory. No plausible explanation is offered for not complying with the same. In serious lapses of the kind, mere suspension followed by disciplinary inquiry will be highly insufficient. There is a lot of scope for arguing that without the complicity of School officials, this lapse or the subject episode could not happen. This Court expresses its anguish that no criminal case is registered against the errant. More is not necessary to specify and less is insufficient to leave the things unsaid.

¶47

Page 8 of 9

¶48

In the above circumstances, these petitions are allowed in part. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned decisions whereby petitioners are stigmatized as the candidates of “UFM”. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the CBSE to hold a fresh inquiry in terms of Bye-Law 36 of the subject Bye-Laws after giving reasonable opportunity of participation to the petitioners. The inquiry should be accomplished and further action, pursuant to its result, be completed within an outer limit of two (2) weeks. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶49

No costs.

¶50

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶51

Dixit Krishna Shripad, Judge

¶52

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 15^th day of September, 2025/Basu

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Sep-2025 17:42:46

¶55

Page 9 of 9

Amiya Kumar Sahu v. Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amiya Kumar Sahu v. Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajashree Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Jagannath Swain Vs State of Odisha

Rama Krushna Patra Vs State of Odisha

Akash Chhatar Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Subham Sahu Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Nihareeka Barik Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi