Delhi High Court Rejects NSUI CBSE PIL on Marking System

• The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) regarding alleged irregularities in CBSE's On-Screen Marking (OSM) system.
• The court ruled that grievances concerning answer sheet revaluation or technical issues constitute an individual cause of action and are not suitable for a PIL.
• This decision followed a similar rejection of a related petition by the Supreme Court.
• Students are advised to pursue their grievances individually with the CBSE or through appropriate legal channels.
• The NSUI PIL sought compensatory marks, an independent inquiry into OSM failures, and an extension of the re-evaluation portal.

The court emphasized that grievances of the type presented in the NSUI PIL Delhi High Court, particularly those related to the revaluation of answer sheets or technical issues, are not suitable for resolution through a Public Interest Litigation.

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged alleged irregularities and technical failures within the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) On-Screen Marking (OSM) system for Class XII examinations. A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, chose not to entertain the petition filed by the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI). This decision effectively disposed of the NSUI PIL Delhi High Court case without issuing any specific orders, marking a significant development in the ongoing discourse surrounding examination evaluation processes. The court's stance underscored its view on the appropriateness of PILs for grievances of this nature.

The PIL, initiated by NSUI President Vinod Jhakhar, sought several specific remedies for students impacted by the alleged issues. Among the key demands was a request for the court to direct the CBSE to award compensatory marks to students whose answer scripts were reportedly missing, blurred, or had been incorrectly evaluated through the OSM system. Furthermore, the petition called for an independent inquiry into what it described as "large-scale irregularities, deficiencies, technical issues and grievance-related failures" associated with the CBSE On-Screen Marking PIL. The NSUI also requested a directive to extend the verification and re-evaluation portal's operational period by an additional month, aiming to provide students with more time to address their concerns.

The Delhi High Court's decision to reject the NSUI CBSE PIL was rooted in two primary considerations. Firstly, the bench noted that a similar petition concerning CBSE's examination processes had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court recently, establishing a precedent. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the court emphasized that grievances of the type presented in the NSUI PIL Delhi High Court, particularly those related to the revaluation of answer sheets or technical issues, are not suitable for resolution through a Public Interest Litigation. The judges clarified that such matters typically give rise to an "individual cause of action PIL" for the affected student. They affirmed that students retain the right to pursue redressal for their grievances directly with the CBSE or through individual legal channels, adhering to established frameworks. This judicial perspective highlights a clear demarcation between collective public interest issues and personal complaints.

This ruling from the Delhi High Court provides important guidance for future legal challenges concerning examination-related issues, particularly those involving technical systems like CBSE's OSM. The court's unequivocal statement that claims for revaluation of answer books generate an individual cause of action for the student concerned reinforces the principle that personal grievances should be addressed through individual remedies rather than broad public interest litigation. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, effectively signals that while students have avenues to address their concerns with the CBSE within its prescribed framework or by approaching the courts individually, a collective petition like the CBSE Class 12 revaluation PIL is not the appropriate mechanism. The presence of Solicitor General Tushar during the proceedings underscores the significance of the matter, even though no specific actions or statements were attributed to him in the reported facts. This judicial stance clarifies that lawyers advising clients on exam re-evaluation or technical system failures should guide them towards individual legal recourse, rather than attempting to frame such issues as matters of public interest.

This ruling clarifies that individual grievances related to exam re-evaluation or technical issues in systems like CBSE's OSM are not suitable for Public Interest Litigation, guiding lawyers on the appropriate legal avenues for such client matters and indicating a judicial preference for individual remedies.

Source: Reporting based on court proceedings.