As per the Delhi High Court, once a school submits a student's internal assessment marks to the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) website, it cannot request any changes, even if there were errors in the initial upload of the marks.

In the words of Justice C Hari Shankar, allowing schools to make errors while uploading students' marks on CBSE's website and then expecting the Board to rectify these mistakes would lead to complete chaos.

The court highlighted that if such a practice were to be permitted, the CBSE would not be able to unquestionably accommodate these requests. It would necessitate conducting individual verifications in each instance to confirm the accurate marks awarded to the candidate. Justice Shankar made these remarks while rejecting a plea filed by a father requesting the CBSE to amend his daughter's Class X academic year 2019-2020 Social Studies subject internal assessment marks from 18 to 20 marks.

In July 2020, the school sent a communication to the CBSE stating an error in the uploaded internal assessment marks of seven students, including the petitioner's daughter. The marks were incorrectly entered as 18 out of 20 instead of the accurate 20 out of 20. The school then requested that the CBSE rectify these errors on their end.

The CBSE responded that it couldn't fulfill the request to modify the internal assessment marks for the seven candidates. They referred to their issued circulars, which mandated schools to ensure accurate marks upon upload, stating that no corrections would be permitted after the marks were uploaded.

In denying the plea, Justice Shankar emphasized that the prohibition outlined in the CBSE Circulars against altering the marks is "extremely beneficial for the public interest."

The court expressed regret, stating, "This is one of those regrettable cases where the ruling must be based on rationale rather than emotion."

The court further noted that since the CBSE Circulars were not being contested and the Board's decision aligned with these directives, there was no viable basis for the grievance presented in the plea.

Representation in the case was as follows:
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Advocate
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: NILKANTH DAS AND ORS. v. CBSE AND ORS.