CBSE Class XII Boards : Supreme Court Disposes Plea As CBSE Brings Formula To Assess Private Students From Gulf

The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Monday (June 22) that it has notified a national policy addressing the situation of private students from Gulf countries affected by the cancellation of CBSE Class XII Board exams due to the recent international crisis in the Gulf region.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, informed the bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Vipul M Pancholi that a fresh all-India policy has been framed to address the concerns of similarly situated students affected by the cancellation of examinations in West Asian countries due to regional conflict.

The bench was hearing the Writ Petition filed by one Pransu Jigarkumar Patel, a private candidate from Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia, who had challenged CBSE's failure to declare his Class XII Improvement Examination result despite the Board having framed a special assessment scheme for students in several Gulf countries where examinations were cancelled due to war-related tensions.

The petitioner had contended that while CBSE's March 27, 2026 assessment scheme covered regular students, no clarification had been issued regarding private candidates appearing for improvement examinations, resulting in his result being withheld as "Result Later" (R.L.). He had argued that the omission was arbitrary and discriminatory, adversely affecting his higher education prospects.

It may be recalled that the Court had on June 8 issued notice to the Union of India asking it to come up with a solution to the issue raised by the petitioner.n June 13, the Court was informed by the Union that a policy will be framed to address the grievance of the petitioner. The matter was requested to be re-listed on June 22, by the Solicitor General, i.e., today.

Today, it was explained by the Solicitor General that there were two categories of students affected by the cancellation of CBSE examinations across seven Gulf countries i.e., regular school students and private candidates. The unique challenge posed by private candidates was that they had no school to supply internal assessment records such as quarterly, half-yearly and pre-board examination marks, i.e., the very basis on which the original March 27 assessment scheme was designed to evaluate results.

He informed that the new policy (notified on June 21, 2026) resolved this gap by formulating a distinct formula for private candidates: for subjects where examinations were cancelled, the marks would be computed as 40% of theory marks scored in the Class X board examination and 60% of theory marks scored in the Class XII board examination of the student. For Class X performance, the average of the top three scoring subjects was used, normalised against the maximum marks of each subject.

In the petitioner's specific case,Physics and Chemistry examinations were held, but Mathematics, English and Computer Science were cancelled; the two appeared subjects were assessed on actual marks, while the three cancelled subjects were evaluated under the new formula.

The Solicitor General confirmed that the petitioner's result, so computed, showed marks higher than his earlier performance, and the result was communicated to him via email and would be updated in his DigiLocker. The policy further provided that if a student remained unsatisfied with the assessed marks, they could appear in the next regular examination.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while acknowledging that the result had been declared, requested the Court to protect the petitioner's right to seek copies of answer scripts and pursue re-evaluation in accordance with CBSE rules.

However, the Bench observed that such reliefs were not part of the original prayer in the writ petition.

Justice Bhatti remarked that it was generally slow to interfere in examination-related matters and noted that the grievance raised in the petition stood substantially addressed in view of the new policy and the communication issued to the petitioner.

Accordingly, taking on record the policy notified by the Centre on June 21, and the Solicitor General's statement, the Court disposed of the plea. It clarified that if the petitioner had any surviving grievance, he would be at liberty to pursue such remedies independently in accordance with law.

Cause Title : PRANSU JIGARKUMAR PATEL Vs THE UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 747/2026 Diary No. 35131 / 2026