‘Absolutely arbitrary’: Delhi High Court slams CBSE for quietly abolishing ‘additional subject’ option for students

The division bench said that a student seeking exam rules would naturally look under the Examination Bye-Laws tab, not governing body minutes. (Image enhanced using AI)

Highlighting that the CBSE’s action suffers from grave “arbitrariness”, the Delhi High Court order added that the board’s attempt to abruptly discontinue the category is “absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable”, that bringing the preparation of two years or one year of the students to naught.

Abolished ‘additional subject’ exams

• The legal battle originated from a resolution passed by the CBSE governing body on December 26, 2024, which sought to abolish the provision allowing private candidates to offer an additional subject after passing their Class 12 examinations.
• While the board argued this change aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, students from the 2024 and 2025 batches contended they had spent years preparing for these exams based on Clause 43(i) of the Examination Bye-Laws.
• The board claimed the amendment was public knowledge after being posted on its website under the “governing body minutes” tab on February 27, 2025.
• However, students only discovered the category had been eliminated when the formal examination notice was issued in September 2025.
• While hearing a student’s plea, the single judge gave an order in favour of the students.

What is Examination Bye-Laws?

• For the purposes of conducting the examinations and admitting the students enrolled in the schools affiliated to CBSE to the examinations conducted by it, bye-laws have been framed.
• These bye-laws are called Examination Bye-Laws of the CBSE and are effective from January 31, 1995.
• The bye-laws contain a specific provision in Clause 43(i), which permits a candidate who has obtained a minimum grade ‘D’ in at least five subjects to offer an additional subject as a private candidate, provided that the additional subject is provided in the scheme of studies and is offered within six years of passing the examination of the board.
• Clause 43 of the bye-laws was amended in the year 2021, and the only change that was made in the existing Clause 43 was that the period of offering the additional subject was reduced to two years from six years after passing the examination of the board.

CBSE’s case

• Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma and Additional Standing Counsel Manisha Singh have argued that the single judge has completely erred in law by allowing the plea and permitting the students to take the ‘additional subject’ examination, completely ignoring the amendment, which was brought into the Examination Bye-Laws.
• They further argued that the plea taken by the students that they were entitled to the relief based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation is absolutely misconceived for the reason that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not have any application in case a policy decision is taken in public interest.

Student’s stand

• Appearing for the students, senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao submitted that the issue as is being projected by the CBSE in this appeal never arose in the facts of the case.
• According to him, the students never challenged the amendment brought about in the examination bye-laws by the resolution of the governing body of the CBSE on December 26, 2024.
• He further stated that it is not in dispute that the governing body of the CBSE passed the resolution on December 26, 2024, eliminating the category of ‘additional subject’ for private students; it was approved by the controlling authority only on January 22, 2025.

• He submitted that any student, intending to take any examination conducted by the CBSE, will search the provisions of the Bye-Laws on the website under the tab ‘bye-laws’ or any other related term close to ‘bye-laws’.
• He stated that such a student will not click the tab ‘governing body minutes’ on the website of the CBSE, and, therefore, any posting of the minutes of the meeting of the governing body on the website under the tab ‘governing body minutes’ cannot, in any manner, be considered to be a publication of the amendment in the bye-laws.

‘Absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable’

• According to the information available on the website of the CBSE, even for exploring the governing body minutes on the website, a person has to click successive tabs.
• In this factual situation, the contention of the ASG that the amendments in the bye-laws were appropriately publicised, published, or notified cannot be accepted on any count whatsoever.
• It has been the consistent practice of the appellant to upload any change in the Examination Bye-Laws after being resolved by the governing body and approved by the controlling authority on its website, distinctly from uploading minutes of meetings of the governing body.

• If the CBSE intended to bring into force the amendment in the bye-laws w.e.f. 2026 examination, they ought to have uploaded the amendment in the Examination Bye-Laws under an appropriate tab on the website, well in advance, so that the students would have made their conscious and informed choice of not sitting at home preparing for the ‘additional subject’ examination.
• A huge prejudice had been caused to those students, who, in view of what bye-law 43(i) envisaged before its amendment, were preparing for a year or two for the ‘additional subject’ examination for private candidates.
• Such an insistence on the part of the CBSE to apply the amendment in the bye-laws for the current examination, depriving the students who had passed their board examination in 2024 and 2025, from appearing in the ‘additional subject’ category, is thus absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable.

Doctrine of legitimate expectation

• From the discussion on the doctrine of legitimate expectation made above, what we find is that a mere hope or expectation is not a feature based on which a right can be claimed by any person; rather, such expectation can be said to be legitimate only if it is based on some right or on a promise made by the state or its instrumentality.
• The right available to the students to appear in the ‘additional subject’ examination as a private candidate existed in what Clause 43(i) of the Examination Bye-Laws of the CBSE envisaged and based on such right.
• The students took a conscious decision not to take further admission in any higher education course and rather to prepare for the ‘additional subject’ examination to be held in the year 2026.
• The doctrine of legitimate expectation is being invoked on mere expectation; it is being invoked, and rightly so, based on the right available to the students under Clause 43(i) of the Examination Bye-Laws.
• Defeating such a right based on the resolution of the governing body of the CBSE on December 26, 2024, which was not appropriately notified/published/promulgated, the action on the part of the CBSE is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable.

‘Not a question of validity, but proper publication’

• Delhi High Court said that for praying for the effective relief, so that the students are permitted to take the ‘additional subject examination’ as a private candidate in the year 2026, they didn’t need to have challenged the amendment in the bye-laws as per the resolution of the governing body of the CBSE dated December 26, 2024.
• In fact, no such challenge was made by the students in the proceedings of the petition before the single judge.
• The question of the validity of such an amendment does not arise here at all.
• The question that arises and which has appropriately been addressed by the single judge by passing the judgment and order is the applicability of the amended bye-law as per the resolution of the governing body of the CBSE.
• Insistence on the part of the CBSE to make effective and apply the amendment as per the resolution without its proper publication or without having been made known to the students before September 15, 2025, suffers from grave arbitrariness, jeopardising the educational career of the students and bringing the preparation of two years or one year of the students to nought.

Dicision

• The Delhi High Court concluded that the amendment could only be considered effective from September 15, 2025, the date it was finally made clear to the public.
• Consequently, it cannot be applied retrospectively to students who graduated in 2024 and 2025.
• Reiterate the direction issued by the single judge in the judgment and order that the requisite steps shall be taken by the CBSE to make necessary arrangements for registration of the students for ‘additional subject’ examination forthwith, within three working days from the date of the order.