A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The court held that the CBSE’s decision to discontinue the “additional subject” category for private candidates could not be enforced for the 2026 examinations due to a lack of reasonable and appropriate publication of the amendment to its Examination Bye-Laws.
Background
The case, Central Board of Secondary Education v. Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor & Ors. (LPA 72/2026), arose when several students who passed their Class XII examinations in 2024 and 2025 sought to appear for an additional subject in the 2026 board exams. Under the unamended Clause 43(i) of the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws, students were permitted to offer an additional subject as private candidates within two years of passing their board exams.
However, on September 4, 2025, and September 15, 2025, the CBSE issued public notices for the 2025-2026 examination cycle that omitted the “additional subject” category. The students challenged these notifications before a learned Single Judge, who ruled in their favor on February 5, 2026, directing the CBSE to register them. The CBSE then appealed this decision to the Division Bench.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (CBSE): Represented by Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General, the CBSE argued that the Governing Body had resolved on December 26, 2024, to discontinue the additional subject category to align with the National Education Policy, 2020. This was approved by the Controlling Authority on January 22, 2025. The CBSE contended that:
- The amendment was published on the CBSE website under the ‘Governing Body Minutes’ tab on February 27, 2025.
- The students could not claim “legitimate expectation” as the decision was a policy change made in the public interest.
- Students were not prejudiced as they should still be able to appear for additional subjects via the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS).
Respondents (Students): Represented by Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate, the students argued that the amendment was never effectively communicated to them. They contended that:
- Simply posting minutes under a “Governing Body Minutes” tab does not constitute proper publication of a change in Examination Bye-Laws.
- They had spent one to two years preparing for the additional subject exams based on the existing Bye-Laws.
- The first time the general public was made aware of the elimination of the category was through the notifications in September 2025, which was too late for those already in preparation.
Court’s Analysis
The Court focused on whether the amendment was promulgated in a “suitable manner.” Citing the Supreme Court in B.K. Srinivasan and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (1987), the Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must be published through a reasonable mode to take effect.
The Court observed:
“Any student intending to appear in the ‘additional subject’ category examination of the CBSE can be expected to search the Bye-Laws under the tab ‘Examination Bye-Laws’ on the website of the CBSE… Such a student, he submits, will not click the tab ‘Governing Body Minutes’ on the website of the CBSE.”
The Court found that the CBSE had a consistent past practice of notifying amendments distinctly from uploading minutes. By failing to follow this, the CBSE caused “huge prejudice” to students.
Regarding the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, the Court clarified that it is “entrenched in Indian administrative law” as a check on arbitrariness. The Court noted:
“In the instant case, the right available to the students to appear in the ‘additional subject’ examination as a private candidate existed in what Clause 43(i) of the Examination Bye-Laws of the CBSE envisaged and based on such right, the respondents-students took a conscious decision not to take further admission in any higher education course and rather to prepare for ‘additional subject’ examination.”
The Court concluded that the amendment could only be considered effective from September 15, 2025, the date it was formally notified via the public notice, and applying it retrospectively to students who had already begun preparation was “absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable.”
Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the CBSE’s appeal and pending applications. It reiterated the direction of the learned Single Judge, ordering the CBSE to:
“…take necessary arrangements for registration of the students for ‘additional subject’ examination forthwith, say within three working days from today, if such arrangements have already not been made.”
The Court held that the CBSE’s actions were violative of the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Central Board of Secondary Education v. Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor & Ors.
Case Number: LPA 72/2026
