Half-Yearly Public Exams For Classes 8, 9, 10th Withdrawn, Says Karnataka Govt; 'Why Harass Students?', Asks Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today (October 15) was informed that the Karnataka Government has withdrawn a notification for conducting half-yearly Public Exams for Classes 8, 9, 10th in districts Kalaburagi, Bidar, Raichur, Ballari, Yadgiri, Koppal of Karnataka, which was alleged to be in defiance of the Court's interim order. Based on this, the Court has asked Advocate KV Dhananjay (for petitioners)...
The Supreme Court today (October 15) was informed that the Karnataka Government has withdrawn a notification for conducting half-yearly Public Exams for Classes 8, 9, 10th in districts Kalaburagi, Bidar, Raichur, Ballari, Yadgiri, Koppal of Karnataka, which was alleged to be in defiance of the Court's interim order.
Based on this, the Court has asked Advocate KV Dhananjay (for petitioners) to take instructions, keeping the matter to be heard next week.
On the last occasion, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed petitioners to file a contempt application against the Karnataka Government's proposal of conducting Board Exams where question papers will be set by the administrative office.
Advocate KV Dhananjay had informed that since the court had given an interim order in their favour which stayed the decision of the Karnataka Government to hold Board Examinations for Classes 5, 8 and 9th, the proposal to conduct similar examinations would be in contempt of the court's order.
Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Karnataka, submitted that the government had withdrawn the notification even before the contempt was filed. If any exam was conducted, the results shall not be declared.
Advocate KV Dhananjay however informed that despite the interim stay, the Karnataka Government did conduct the public examinations. He said: "If the results were to be published, the parents have to be communicated."
On this, Justice Bela said: "What is the State bent upon harassing these people?"
Mehta responded that "nobody is interested in troubling the children" and tried reasoning with the Court that the examination was conducted as in some areas, the average marks obtained by students were less than 50.
However, Justice Bela orally remarked that there is "some ego problem" and added that it is not permissible to conduct exams in the face of an interim order.
On March 12, through an interim order, the Supreme Court put on hold the Board Exams proposed to be held by the Karnataka Government for students of Classes 5, 8 and 9 of the schools affiliated to the State Board.
A bench of Justices Trivedi & Pankaj Mithal directed the division bench of the High Court to decide expeditiously the main appeals filed by Karnataka State against the single judge's order without being influenced by the observations made by the Supreme Court.
Eventually, on March 22, the division bench of the High Court upheld's Karnataka Government's decision to conduct Board Examination for Classes 5, 8 and 9th.
Background
The issue arose after the Karnataka government issued two notifications appointing the KSEAB (Karnataka School Examination & Assessment Board) as the competent authority to conduct the "Summative Assessment-2" exams for students of Classes 5, 8, and 9 and the annual examination for Class 11, studying in government, aided and unaided schools and colleges, following the Karnataka State Board Syllabus.
It was argued has the Summative Assessment-2 has all the trappings of a board examination, akin to those conducted by the CBSE or ICSE for students of 10th standard, and therefore the same was contrary to the RTE Act.
This decision was challenged before the Karnataka High Court. A Single Judge quashed the government notifications. Justice Ravi V Hosmani said “When Government intends to bring changes to examination system affecting such large number of students, it would be desirable as well as mandatory to follow democratic procedure stipulated. And in case of failure, there need be no further justification to set such faulty measures at naught, regardless of merit policy and object behind such measures.”
Further the bench held: “The respondents have not made any effort to justify impugned Notifications as compliant with requirement of Section 145 (4) of Education Act, they would have to be held as unsustainable.”
However, in the State's appeal to a Division Bench, the Single Judge's judgment was stayed. Challenging the Division bench order, organizations of private schools and parents filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court.
Arguments before Supreme Court
Since the main appeals were pending before the division bench, the Supreme Court without going into the merits of the case said that the notifications prima facie appeared to violate Section 30 of the Right to Act and created unnecessary complications in the education policy affecting career of students.
It opined that since the government notifications had already been set aside by the single judge of the High Court, the Division Bench should not have permitted the state government to proceed further with the examinations.
During the arguments, the petitioners averred that the State did not have the benefit of a considered judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court. Rather, it had only obtained an interim order, like last year. They also contended that Board exams are not permitted under the RTE Act for subject classes, irrespective of whether a student is failed or not.
State, on the other hand, pled that the exams in question were not really "exams", but "summative assessments" intended to prepare the students for Class 10 & 12 Board Exams, but the Court was not convinced. "Name does not make difference...it is being conducted by the Board...," it said.
A second contention raised by the State was that under the policy framework of the impugned notifications, students were not required to "pass" the exams. This contention led the Court to pose a straightforward question ie whether the assessment marks were to count towards final exams? When the answer from the State came in affirmative, the bench indicated that the same would amount to interference with statutory provisions.
"We are not satisfied...there is a bar under Section 30 of the RTE Act...why should students appear if they are not required to pass?," the Bench said. Section 30 of the RTE Act provides that no child shall be required to pass any Board examination till completion of elementary education.
Another State contention was that schools in Karnataka were not adhering to standards under the Karnataka Education Act, and the same necessitated assessment of school performance. It further urged that the main objection in the present case had been about prior publication, not Section 30 of RTE Act. None of these weighed with the Court.
In fact, the Court commented that the State should not "complicate" the education system, as Board exams have their own scare.
Case Details: ORGANISATION FOR UNAIDED RECOGNISED SCHOOLS ® (OUR SCHOOLS) v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS, SLP(C) No. 8142/2024, REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. SLP (C) No. 8127/2024
Appearances: Counsels for petitioners/School Associations: Advocates KV Dhananjay, Sudharsan Suresh, Anirudh Kulkarni, Sainath DM, Ananya Krishna and Dheeraj SJ; AoR A Velan
Click Here To Read/Download Order