The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), ruling in favour of students who sought to appear for the ‘additional subject’ examination as private candidates in 2026.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that CBSE’s decision to discontinue the ‘additional subject’ category could not be enforced against students who passed Class XII in 2024 and 2025, as the amendment to the Examination Bye-Laws had not been properly published prior to September 15, 2025.
Reiterating that CBSE is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Delhi High Court observed that its actions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 and must conform to constitutional standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness. On CBSE’s conduct, the bench observed that “CBSE sought to defeat the valuable rights of the students, causing not only serious prejudice to them, but also jeopardising their educational career.”
The case arose after CBSE removed the ‘additional subject’ option for private Class XII candidates through a December 2024 resolution. Students who had passed in 2024 & 2025, and had spent one to two years preparing to appear in an additional subject under the existing Bye-Laws, were barred from applying when CBSE’s September 2025 examination notices omitted the category.
Aggrieved, they moved the Delhi High Court, arguing that the amendment had not been properly published before being enforced. A Single Judge granted relief, leading to the present appeal by CBSE.
The Court, concurring with the single judge decision, observed that merely uploading the Governing Body’s resolution under the “Governing Body Minutes” tab on CBSE’s website cannot be said to be appropriate publication of such amendment in the Bye-Laws so as to enable the affected students to come to know of such amendment.” Citing B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658, the Bench emphasised that subordinate legislation must be reasonably publicised to those affected. The Court concluded that there was “no publication in the eye of law” of the amendment before September 15, 2025, and therefore it could not be applied retrospectively to students who had already passed in 2024 and 2025.
Addressing CBSE’s argument that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was inapplicable due to policy change in public interest, the Court held that the students’ expectation was not based on a mere hope but on an existing right under the unamended Bye-Laws. It ruled that denial of that right, without reasonable basis and proper notification, violated principles of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. Reference was made to Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India & Ors. [(2012) 11 SCC 1], Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [(2024) 3 SCC 799], and Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma& Ors. [(2024) 16 SCC 598].
The Bench found that many students had consciously deferred higher education admissions and spent one to two years preparing for additional subject examinations based on the existing Clause 43(i) of the Examination Bye-Laws. Denying them the opportunity without proper notice was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court observed:
“Insistence on the part of the appellant-CBSE to make effective and apply the amendment… without its proper publication… suffers from grave arbitrariness, jeopardising the educational career of the students and bringing the preparation of two years or one year of the students to a naught.”
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and directed CBSE to facilitate registration for the additional subject examination within three working days.
Appearances
Appellant – Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms. Manisha Singh, ASC, Mr.Amit Gupta, Mr.R.V. Prahbhat, Mr.Shubham Sharma, Mr.Yashwardhan Sharma, Mr.Naman, Advs.
Respondents – Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Lzafeer Ahmad B.F., Mr.Karan Nambiar, Mr.Sachin Dubey, Mr.Shubham Arun, Mr.Abhir Malik, Advs for R-1-17. Mr.Sahaj Garg, SPC with Mr.Deepansh Sharma, GP for R-18.
