The Karnataka High Court has overturned a previous ruling by a single bench, which had halted the State government's plans to administer board exams for students in grades 5, 8, 9, and 11 in schools affiliated with the State Board.

The division bench comprising Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K has granted approval to the State's appeal, instructing the government to proceed with the pending assessments for students in classes 5, 8, and 9. Notably, board examinations for Class 11 had already been conducted during the legal proceedings. Furthermore, the court has mandated the State to resume the examination process for Class 11 as well.

Additionally, the Court has mandated that stakeholders must be consulted before finalizing notifications regarding assessments for future academic years. The Karnataka government had issued two notifications on October 6 and October 9, 2023, appointing the Karnataka School Examination & Assessment Board (KSEAB) as the competent authority to oversee the "Summative Assessment-2" examinations.

The ruling was contested in the High Court, where a Single Judge nullified the government notifications. Nevertheless, upon the State's appeal to a Division Bench, the judgment of the Single Judge was temporarily suspended. Subsequently, in opposition to the Division Bench's decision, private school organizations and parents filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court, resulting in the exams being temporarily halted as the interim order was set aside.

During the appeal, the state government contended that conducting board exams is in the best interest of the students. They emphasized that if the exams were to be canceled at this stage, the respective schools would need to create their own examination papers for the students. Furthermore, they argued that relying on government school teachers to set the exam papers would potentially lead to a decline in the standards of the exams.

Additional Advocate General Vikram Huilgol, representing the State, asserted that the notifications invalidated by the single judge simply appointed the Karnataka School Examination & Assessment Board (KSEAB) as the authority responsible for administering the exams. He highlighted that it was the Government Order issued on November 16, 2023, which explicitly stated that board exams, referred to as Summative Assessment-2, for classes 5th, 8th, and 9th, as well as the annual examination for class 11th for the subject academic year, would be conducted. Importantly, he noted that this Government Order had not been legally challenged.

Counsel A Velan, representing a parents' body that was involved in the appeal, contended that parents hold a fundamental right in matters concerning their children's education. However, he pointed out that they were not given any notice or opportunity to present their views in this case.

Referring to the Constituent Assembly debates, National Education Policy, US Court decisions, Apex court decisions and International Covenants to which India is a signatory, Velan argued, “Executive cannot be allowed to issue the notification without consultation with the stakeholders...I am not contending that board exams should be or should not be conducted, but we should be consulted, and our view should be considered.”

Advocate K V Dhananjay, representing the Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka and others, argued that the Government Order (GO) mentioned by the State remained unchallenged because it is considered a government proceeding, and typically such orders are not subjected to legal challenges by external parties.

Dhananjay further asserted that if the interpretation of Section 22 favored by the State were to be accepted, it could potentially lead to challenges from schools questioning its validity due to perceived excessive delegation of authority. He emphasized that such a crucial provision should not be vulnerable to being contested in this manner.

Further he claimed “The impugned notifications are orders, violation by schools, if the government wants to proceed against the school, they are not able to show under which provisions violation will be punished. Without framing rules the notifications have to go. They cannot say 'so what' rules are not framed such an argument is not maintainable.”

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.