Mobile phone in exam hall: Karnataka High Court backs CBSE move cancelling IIT-JEE qualified student’s board results

Stringent penalty

• The CBSE classifies unfair means (UFM) into categories based on severity, with Category-1 covering minor offences, like possessing notes, and Category-3 covering serious, often criminal, actions like using electronic devices or threatening staff. Penalties range from cancelling the current subject exam to banning a student for multiple years.
• Even mere possession of a mobile phone in the exam hall has been mentioned in Category-3, which prescribes a stringent penalty.
• Since an expert body discussed and ratified the aspect, the court will not substitute the expert opinion with that of its own.
• The question of reading down an aspect which has been specifically removed from Category-1 and inserted in Category-3 by an expert body is not liable to be diluted by this court in proceedings under Article 226 (power of high courts to issue certain writs) of the Constitution.

Appeal allowed

• Concluding that the penalty had been imposed strictly in accordance with the rules, the division bench allowed CBSE’s appeal.
• “Accordingly, the above appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside,” the bench ruled.

The incident

• The case arose from an incident during the CBSE Class 12 board examinations for the 2024–25 academic year, which began on February 17, 2025, and concluded on March 11, 2025.
• The 18-year-old student of an international residential school in Bengaluru had opted for Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, English and Physical Education as his subjects.
• On the first day of the examination, February 17, 2025, when the exam for the Physical Education paper was being conducted, an invigilator noticed that the student had a mobile phone in his pocket about 25 minutes after the examination began at Shri Ram Global School, Bommenahalli, nearly 23 km from the student’s residence.
• The invigilator immediately seized the device and reported the matter to the examination observer.
• Despite the discovery, the student was provided with a fresh question paper and answer booklet and was allowed to complete the examination.
• He was also permitted to write the remaining papers in the board examination.

Inquiry by CBSE panel

• After the examination cycle ended, the student was summoned for an inquiry by CBSE’s Unfair Means Committee on April 9, 2025.
• During the inquiry, the student explained that he had reached the examination centre late and had hurried into the hall without realising that the phone remained in his pocket.
• He further stated that the device had not been used during the examination.
• The committee inspected the phone and found no material related to the examination paper stored on it.
• The report also noted that there was no evidence that the student had copied answers from the device.
• Nevertheless, relying on the CBSE’s guidelines on unfair means, the committee recommended that the case be placed under Category-3, which deals with possession or use of electronic devices during examinations.
• Acting on this recommendation, the CBSE issued a communication on May 28, 2025, informing the school that the student’s case had been placed under Category-3, and imposing the prescribed penalty.
• Under this category, the punishment includes cancellation of the current year’s examination in all subjects, and cancellation of the next year’s examination as well, after which the candidate may reappear in all subjects.

Student challenges penalty

• Aggrieved by the decision, the student approached the Karnataka High Court, challenging the CBSE’s communication and the validity of the relevant unfair means guidelines.
• Advocate Rajeswara P N, appearing for the student, contended that the mobile phone had never been used for copying during the exam.
• The counsel submitted that the device contained no incriminating material related to the subject.
• He said the punishment was disproportionate, especially when the board’s earlier rules allowed “benefit of doubt” where no foul intent was established.
• The counsel also argued that his client’s academic record is good, stating that he had secured 92 per cent in the CBSE Class 10 examination.
• He also informed the court that he had even qualified the IIT-JEE Advanced examination, highlighting the serious impact of the penalty on his academic future.

Single judge grants relief

• In August 2025, a single judge of the high court accepted the student’s plea.
• The court noted that in an earlier case, Shuchi Mishra v. Joint Secretary, Department of School Education, relief had been granted to a student who had carried a mobile phone but had not used it during the examination.
• Observing that young students should not be treated harshly for mistakes committed without dishonest intent, the single judge set aside the CBSE order and directed the board to declare the student’s results and issue his mark sheet and certificate within one week.

CBSE appeals order

• The CBSE challenged the decision before the division bench of the high court.
• The board argued that its UFM rules had been revised in 2024, after the earlier judgments relied upon by the single judge.
• Previously, possession of copying material, including mobile phones, without using it, fell under a less serious category with a milder penalty.
• However, following deliberations in the 139th ‘Governing Body Meeting’ held on June 24, 2024, the CBSE decided to treat mobile phones and other electronic devices on the same footing, recognising the serious risk they posed to examination integrity, including the possibility of question paper leaks or communication with outsiders.
• Consequently, a January 20, 2025, communication formally placed possession, use or attempted use of any electronic device, including mobile phones, under category-3, carrying the harsher penalty.

Madras High Court slams ‘terrible rat race’, overrules CBSE

In a strongly worded order reflecting on the intense pressure surrounding competitive entrance examinations in India, the Madras High Court permitted a Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE) class 12 student to appear for the Mathematics examination as an additional subject, observing that parents make the children run the terrible rat race to secure medical or engineering seats.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea by one B Shajimon, who sought to quash a January 8 order of CBSE refusing permission for his daughter to appear for Mathematics as an additional subject in the Class 12 examination on March 9.

Kerala High Court saves Class 10 CBSE candidates

In a relief delivered just weeks before the commencement of the Class 10 CBSE examinations, the Kerala High Court came to the aid of 38 students who were on the verge of being compelled to write the wrong Sanskrit paper due to a clerical error by their school.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was hearing a petition filed by Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Kasaragod, and directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to immediately correct the subject code in the Board’s records and permit the affected students to appear for “Communicative Sanskrit” in the 2025–26 Secondary School Examination.

Delhi High Court orders CBSE to fix errors

The Delhi High Court recently issued a mandamus directing the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to rectify clerical errors in the subject registration of three Class 12 students.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea of students of Class 11 and Class 12 seeking direction to CBSE to issue the admit card after correcting their registered subjects to allow them to appear in the CBSE Class 12 Examination.

CBSE pulled up

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) plea against the single judge order that permitted private candidates to appear for ‘additional subject’ examinations for the 2025-2026 academic session.

While dealing with a CBSE’s plea against the single judge order, the Delhi High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the CBSE’s action “jeopardised” students’ educational career.

Orissa High Court orders CBSE to publish Class 12 result cancelled over ‘similar answers’

The Orissa High Court recently directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to publish the Class 12 results of a student within one week, observing that cancellation based on similarity of answers, in the absence of any proof of malpractice, amounted to a discriminatory “pick and choose” approach affecting her Right to Equality under Article 14.

Justice Ananda Chandra Behera was hearing the plea of one Barsha, who challenged the cancellation of her results over alleged indulgence in adopting unfair means during the examination of two subjects.