Supreme Court Stays Results Declaration Of Half-Yearly Board Exams Of Classes 8-10 In Karnataka
The Supreme Court today (October 21) directed the State of Karnataka to file a counter-affidavit clarifying whether they have rescinded the notification for conducting a half-yearly public examination for Class 10th in 24 districts out of the 31 districts. The Court stayed the results declaration across the State for half-yearly public exams for Classes 8, 9 and 10th, if any were conducted....
The Supreme Court today (October 21) directed the State of Karnataka to file a counter-affidavit clarifying whether they have rescinded the notification for conducting a half-yearly public examination for Class 10th in 24 districts out of the 31 districts. The Court stayed the results declaration across the State for half-yearly public exams for Classes 8, 9 and 10th, if any were conducted.
This development comes after the Court on October 15 was informed by the Karnataka Government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, that the Government has withdrawn a notification for conducting half-yearly public exams for Classes 8, 9 and 10 in districts of Kalaburagi, Bidar, Raichur, Ballari, Yadgiri, Koppal of Karnataka, which was alleged to be in defiance of the Court's interim order.
Advocate KV Dhananjay (for petitioners) has filed a contempt petition arguing that these public examinations are similar to the Board Examinations conducted for Classes 5, 8 and 9th across the State, on which the Supreme Court had ordered a stay through its interim order. It is alleged that the State of Karnataka has never before witnessed a public examination for a half-year.
Moreover, it has been argued that for standards 8 and 9, the examination paper will be set up by Deputy Directions/Deputy Directors of Public Instruction, who carry out tasks such as registering schools that are newly set up and entering their names in a school register.
In the meanwhile, on October 18, Madhu Bangarappa, Minister of School Education and Literacy, in Bengaluru, officially announced that the Government has rescinded the notification. Instead, Summative Assessment-2 will be conducted for classes 5, 8 and 9 classes.
Today, Advocate KV Dhananjay informed that although the Karnataka Government withdrew the notification, the withdrawal notification pertains to 8, 9 and 10th standards only in 7 districts. He said: "There was 10th standard examination in 24 other districts also which we have information [and they have not withdrawn the notification in regards to that]....We don't bring every allegation, so they might say we did not allege [for withdrawing notification for class 10th]. But its a fact. They don't have to wait for us to allege a fact. The State has 31 district, of which 7 districts they have withdrawn last week. For 24 districts, simply because we did not allege before this hon'ble Court, they have chosen to not withdraw at all."
He added that in the last hearing, they were no in possession of relevant circulars for all districts and that's why, the specific allegation was made only in regards to 7 districts.
To this, Justice Bela orally asked the State: "What do you want? Why are you harassing students just like this? You are the State. We have passed written orders"
Even in the last hearing, Justice Bela had made similar remarks that the "state is bent upon harassing" the students.
Justice Bela added that for the 24 districts, the petitioners could have brought it to the Court's notice in the last hearing.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat (for the State of Karnataka) informed the Court that the orders do not pertain to class 10th. To this, Justice Bela asked: "So, do you want order for every standard?"
Justice Sharma sought clarification from Kamat whether the exams in question are interim exams or final board exams, the latter being permitted. When Kamat responded that these are half-yearly exams, Justice Sharma said: "You don't have half-yearly board exams. In my State, at least we don't have."
Justice Bela also added to this, stating that this is nothing but "ego-issues". She also questioned under which provision of law the half-yearly public exams are permissible.
Kamat reasoned that in Section 22 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the Board has been given the power to conduct Board exams. He added that for 8 and 9th the notification has been withdrawn but for class 10th, such exams were conducted because the overall performance of students had dropped low.
Kamat also added that the results of these exams are not publicly declared. Although the Board sets the exams, the exams are by school teachers themselves. He also stated that as per his instruction, even private schools conduct such examinations.
He added that if the Court directs, the Government will consequently also withdraw notification for class 10th.
Dhananjay however countered and informed the Court that when half-yearly exams were conducted for class 9th in Raichur, questions from 2nd semester were asked and schools went into 'panic' and sought clarification from the Department. Thereafter, the questions were substituted with those that were a part of the syllabus.
Justice Bela remarked that in no State, such kind of attitude exists in terms of education. Justice Sharma, remarking that this has created "havoc," added: "If you are so much interested in the welfare of children please open good government schools. Don't throttle these people."
What has happened so far?
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