The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed all the writ petitions. It quashed the Maharashtra State Board’s orders cancelling the petitioners’ Higher Secondary Certificate examination centres and directed restoration of those centres for the February 2026 examinations, subject to safeguards.
The petitioners, recognised junior colleges and ashram schools, had been allotted Board examination centres for years with no prior punitive action. During the February-March 2025 exams, one student at the lead petitioner’s centre was caught copying in the English paper on 11 February 2025. In July 2025, the Divisional Board issued a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of their HSC centres, to which the institutions replied in August 2025.
They asserted that they possessed adequate infrastructure and had conducted examinations without serious complaints. Their core plea was that a single isolated copying incident by one candidate could not justify permanent cancellation and that the action violated the Board’s 2019 Examination Centre Standards and basic principles of fairness.
Despite this, on 18 December 2025, the Board cancelled the centres and shifted the students to alternate locations shortly before the February 2026 exams. The Board relied on a copy-free “100-day programme” and a circular dated 29 January 2025 to cancel centres where malpractice was reported, including for the petitioners, and shifted candidates to centres that were 9-14 kilometres away. The petitioners then filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the above orders. One petition was also filed by affected students challenging the same cancellation.
Petitioners argued that the 2019 “SSC and HSC Examination Centre Amended Standards” required repeated nuisance over three years and inclusion in a closure list for cancellation, which was absent here. They emphasised that the show-cause procedure, timelines, and requirement of a reasoned order were breached and that responsibility for supervision during the examination lay mainly with Board-deployed staff and not the institution. They also pointed to selective action: of 42 centres with some malpractice, 15 allegedly faced no closure.
The Board objected to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that institutions have no right to a centre, and invoked administrative convenience, including pre-generated QR-coded hall tickets.
The Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar rejected the maintainability objection, and held that cancellation of an existing centre has civil and reputational consequences and is open to judicial review. The Court found the orders arbitrary, non-speaking, procedurally defective, and grossly disproportionate to a single admitted incident.
The Court held that once a centre is granted and continued, the institution has at least a right to insist on non-arbitrary withdrawal, adherence to standards and reasoned, proportionate decision-making. It noted that the impugned order merely referred to an incident of malpractice on 11 February 2025 but did not describe the nature or scale of cheating, any institutional complicity, or reasons for rejecting the reply, calling such cryptic orders impermissible where grave civil consequences follow.
The Bench highlighted that even in pursuit of copy-free exams, responses must be calibrated and cannot amount to collective punishment based on a single stray incident without findings of connivance or repetition. It was also held that the Board violated prescribed timelines and procedures under its own 2019 standards, undermining predictability before the exam season, and that administrative convenience regarding hall tickets could not cure legal defects. While strongly endorsing strict anti-cheating measures, the Court insisted that they must be lawful, reasoned, proportionate, and uniformly applied.
In result, the Court allowed all petitions and quashed the cancellation orders, including the 18 December 2025 order, directing the Maharashtra State Board and its Divisional Boards to restore and continue the petitioners’ centres for the February 2026 examinations, subject to safeguards. Each institution was directed to file an undertaking within two weeks promising to ensure fair, malpractice-free exams, to cooperate with inspections and flying squads, and to support monitoring mechanisms.
The Court further issued guidelines to ensure smooth conduct of Board examinations in the future. Institutions were directed to implement minimum physical safeguards such as regulated entry and exit, proper seating and spacing, signage on prohibited items, security personnel, and maintenance of visitors and incident registers. The Board was directed to ensure trained and sensitised invigilators and supervisors, to conduct mandatory pre-exam orientation on anti-cheating protocols, and to fix accountability on Centre In-charges.
For future malpractice, the Court mandated prompt and fair inquiries focusing on the actual responsible individuals rather than automatically punishing institutions. For future closures, it insisted on detailed show-cause notices, disclosure of relevant material, reasonable time for reply, meaningful hearing before the competent committee, reasoned and proportionate orders within prescribed timelines, and uniform treatment of similarly placed centres.
Appearances:
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Ashutosh S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/6/2026
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Mr. Narendra D. Sonavane, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/33/2026
Mr. V.D. Sapkal Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R.N. Patil and Mr. S.R. Sapkal, Advocates for Petitioners in WP/466/2026
Mr. Vinayak P. Narwade, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/48/2026 & WP/77/2026
Mr. Shri. Vinod B. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/236/2026, WP/241/2026, WP/237/2026 & WP/556/2026
Mr. Shanmbhuraje V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/429/2026
Mr. V.S. Panpatte and Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocates for Petitioners in WP/469/2026 & WP/470/2026
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/582/2026
Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner WP/601/2026 & WP603/2026
Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Chh. Sambhajinagar in respective matters
Ms. Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Divisional Board, Latur in respective matters
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader, Mr. S.B. Narwade, Mr. R.S. Wani, Mr. Abhijit M. Phule, Mr. V.M. Kagne, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGPs in respective matters
