Interference Not Warranted With State's Decision To Hold Plus One Exams: Kerala High Court
"The Pandemic is here to stay and life must go on," the Court remarked.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday while observing that conducting Plus One examination was a matter of Government policy and that much deliberation had gone into the same, held that the interference of the Court was not warranted in the matter. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V while disposing of a set of petitions seeking to cancel the Plus One final examination for the academic year...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday while observing that conducting Plus One examination was a matter of Government policy and that much deliberation had gone into the same, held that the interference of the Court was not warranted in the matter.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V while disposing of a set of petitions seeking to cancel the Plus One final examination for the academic year 2020-2021, remarked:
"I find it difficult to appreciate the contention of the petitioners that the decision to conduct the exams was taken by the respondents without much deliberation and without any concern for the health of the students."
The Court also added, "The pandemic is here to stay and as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader, life must go on."
Six students studying in Plus One had approached the Court impugning a notification dated 28.5.2021 issued by the General Education Department of the State by which the First Year Higher Secondary Examination was scheduled to be held from 6.9.2021 to 16.9.2021.
They alleged that the said notification was issued without considering the gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic situation prevalent in the State and accordingly sought a directive to quash the same.
According to the petitioner, the decision taken by the respondent to conduct the examination was without any application of mind or after discussion with Government agencies.
It was further alleged the online classes are not very effective and students who are better placed and financially well off will have an unfair advantage.
Similarly, they contended that even during discussions in the assembly, the digital divide prevailing in the State was highlighted and though it was assured that no efforts shall be spared to bridge the divide, nothing worthwhile has happened.
The petitioner brought to the attention of the Court that the COVID -19 cases in the State have risen to alarming proportions and that the Test Positivity Rate is also very high. As the students pursuing class XI are largely unvaccinated, they are very vulnerable to the virus.
On these grounds, they argued that the decision of the respondents to conduct the class and examinations would affect the life and health of the students.
Additionally, it was submitted that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) had cancelled the public examinations for Class X and XII and had adopted a scheme for internal evaluation of students in the COVID-19 pandemic situation, which was approved by the Supreme Court.
The decision to conduct class XI examination while COVID-19 cases are peaking and the State is readying itself to face the third wave of the pandemic is an erroneous approach and violative of the rights of the students under Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, they contended.
Advocates Ajayakumar and Sri. Legith T. Kotakkal appeared for the petitioners and added that it would be risky for the students to congregate in examination halls and there is every likelihood that the conduct of examination would be a super spreader event.
As such, it was argued that the decision taken by the respondents to conduct the examinations in physical mode, when the effects of the pandemic are wreaking havoc in the State, is a thoroughly unwise decision, taken with absolute disregard to the safety of the students.
Senior Government Pleader T. Hood appeared on behalf of the respondents and vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioners.
It was argued that all aspects of the matter were taken note of by the Government in conjunction with experts in the Education sector while taking the decision to hold the exams.
Likewise, it was submitted that if the conduct of the exams is interfered with, the whole admission process would get derailed and the same would affect the interest of the entire student community.
Furthermore, the students have the option of answering just 50% of the questions to be eligible to get full marks for each of the subjects, the State asserted.
The Court upon persuing the submissions and materials on record noticed that what is envisaged is that double the questions would be offered to the students and they are required to answer only 50% of the questions to secure full marks.
These steps taken amply showed that, unlike previous years, the students will not have much difficulty while facing the exams.
"From the materials made available, it appears that serious efforts have gone in to make sure that the students are not unduly strained and at the same time the process of examination goes on."
The Court also iterated that it can only interfere when a decision is devoid of any reason or affected by malafides or when the decision is reached in the aftermath of statutory violations.
"In other words, the formation of the opinion/satisfaction by the Government about the conduct of the exam is a purely subjective process and if the materials show that the opinion was reached in good faith, it is immune from judicial review."
Accordingly, the pleas were dismissed.