Karnataka High Court Rejects Review Plea on SSLC Grading System for 2025–26 Exams

The Karnataka High Court, in The State of Karnataka v Sahana R Naik, has upheld its earlier directive restraining the State from applying a revised SSLC evaluation system for the 2025–26 examinations. The Court refused to reconsider its April 15 order while addressing the State’s review petition.

Justice ES Indiresh passed the order after hearing submissions from both the State and students opposing the revised grading scheme. The Court maintained that the new system cannot be applied retrospectively, especially when students had already taken their examinations under the existing framework.

The State, represented by Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, argued that the revised system was introduced to address concerns where students were failing Class X due to inability to clear a third-language subject. The proposed system intended to ensure that such subjects would not impact the overall pass or fail status.

However, counsel for the students opposed this change, stating that the revised system would disadvantage those who had performed well in third-language subjects. It was argued that excluding such marks from the final calculation would reduce their overall percentage, thereby affecting merit-based outcomes.

The Court noted that the draft rules introducing the new evaluation system were framed only after the completion of the SSLC examinations. It further observed that these rules, which aim to amend the Karnataka School Examinations framework, had not yet been formally notified.

Emphasising the absence of a valid legal framework, the Court stated, “Regular notification (on the new rules) is yet to be passed by the petitioner State. In that way of the matter, there is no rules as on today, unless said rules is promulgated in a manner known to law.”

The High Court reiterated its earlier position that the evaluation rules applicable at the time of the examination must govern the results. It referred to its April 15 judgement, which had clearly stated that altering the evaluation method after the exams would amount to changing the rules midway.

“The rules which was prevailing as on the date of the issuance of the notification for conducting the examination for the academic year 2025-26 shall prevail,” the Court had earlier held.

At the same time, the Court addressed a concern raised by the State regarding its earlier observation that any subsequent modification of rules would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The State argued that such a remark could limit its ability to make changes for future examinations.

Accepting this limited concern, the Court modified its earlier observation to clarify that future rule changes would not automatically be unconstitutional. With this clarification, the review petition was disposed of, while the main directive against implementing the new grading system for 2025–26 remains intact.