The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the Central Board of Secondary Examination's (CBSE) decision to debar a 12th standard student from appearing in board examinations for the academic years 2025-26 and 2026-27, after he was found to have a mobile phone in his pocket while taking an exam [CBSE v Donthi Satvik Reddy].
A Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bhakru and Justice CM Poonacha said that it could not interfere with an expert body's policy decision in such matters.
"(Under revised rules introduced in 2024) even mere possession of a mobile phone has been mentioned in Category - 3, which prescribes a stringent penalty, which has been done in the present case. The said aspect having been proposed, discussed and ratified by an expert body, this Court, substituting its opinion with that of the expert body does not arise," the Court said.
The Division Bench proceeded to set aside a single-judge Bench order that had earlier granted relief to the student on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that he had any intention to use the mobile phone to cheat.
The Division Bench opined that the single-judge could not have extended the student a benefit of doubt that was not provided for in the CBSE's rules or thereby diluted the strictness of the board's policy.
"The question of reading down an aspect which has been specifically removed from Category - 1 and inserted in Category - 3 (regarding possession of mobile phones during exams) by an expert body is not liable to be interfered with/diluted by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," it said.
The 12th standard student had arrived 25 minutes late for his first board exam on the subject, Physical Education. The examination center was 23 kilometers from his residence.
During the examination, a phone was seized from his pocket after he came to the examination hall from a washroom break.
The student explained to an enquiry committee that he was not aware of the mobile phone in his pocket, pointing out that it was even unnoticed when he was frisked during his entry to the exam hall.
He also highlighted that there was nothing on the mobile phone that was relevant to the exam he was taking, meaning there was no evidence to indicate that the phone could have been used to cheat during the exam.
A subject expert also examined the phone and reported that no relevant exam material was found on the phone. The committee, however, penalised the student with debarment as per the CBSE's Unfair Means guidelines.
The student challenged this turn of events before the High Court. In August 2025, a single-judge Bench quashed CBSE's debarment order, noting that the board was not able to provide evidence that the mobile had been used by the student in the examination.
The single judge opined that it was only a case of negligence by the student and gave him the benefit of the doubt, since no relevant exam subject-related material was found on the mobile.
The CBSE filed an appeal before the Division Bench, challenging the single-judge ruling.
The Division Bench relied on the 139th Governing Body Meeting of CBSE that stipulated that the mere possession of mobile phones in the examination hall would be met with the penalty of debarment for the current academic and next academic year, in order to curb risks of exam papers being leaked.
The Bench opined that the Court cannot substitute its view for the CBSE's approach in such matters and allowed the board's appeal.
The CBSE was represented by Advocate Ananditha Reddy.
The student was represented by Advocate Rajeswara PN.
[Read Order]