Delhi High Court’s Decision on NSUI’s Plea
The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought forth by the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) addressing alleged discrepancies and technical failures in the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) On-Screen Marking (OSM) system for Class XII examinations. The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, decided to dismiss the PIL without any orders, noting that the Supreme Court had recently rejected a similar petition.
Judicial Observations and Student Grievances
The Court emphasized that such issues are not suitable for a PIL and advised that students could individually seek redress from the Court or approach CBSE according to the given guidelines. The Bench remarked, “We observe that the claim for revaluation of answer books gives rise to an individual cause of action for the concerned student, who may seek redressal with CBSE within the prescribed framework.”
Details of the NSUI Petition
The PIL, submitted by NSUI President Vinod Jhakhar, requested that students receive compensatory marks for answer scripts that were missing, blurred, or incorrectly assessed. Moreover, the petitioner demanded an independent investigation into the alleged large-scale irregularities, technical issues, and grievances related to the OSM system. NSUI also requested that the verification and re-evaluation portal remain open for an additional month.
CBSE’s Response and Court’s Stance
Representing CBSE, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the Supreme Court had refused to intervene in a petition concerning the reopening of the online verification portal for answer sheets. Mehta further explained that classes have commenced following re-evaluation, and some students are already at advanced stages of counseling. He questioned NSUI’s locus, pointing out that it is a political organization. Advocate Apar Gupta, representing NSUI, countered that NSUI represents students’ interests, to which the Solicitor General responded, “We are also for the students. No political organization needs to meddle in this.”
Judicial Discipline and Observations
The Court reiterated its inability to intervene now that the Supreme Court has addressed the matter. “The Supreme Court has already observed that relief cannot be granted at this belated stage. After the Supreme Court notes that such belated prayer cannot be granted, can we say no, it can still be granted? For us, is there something called judicial discipline or not?” the Bench commented.
