The Supreme Court today dismissed certain CBSE students' challenge to the Kerala government's 2026 Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses with respect to the standardization formula for preparing rank list to Kerala Engineering, Architecture and Medical (KEAM) admissions.

A partial court working days bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Trideep Pais (for petitioner-students). The bench was of the view that the new scheme for standardization of marks was a policy matter in the domain of experts, not the Court.

"You have applied for admission. Before opening of the admissions, they have changed the criteria. Now if they change the criteria, it's a policy decision. What right is affected?", Justice Misra remarked during the hearing.

In response to a contention by Pais that CBSE Board is tougher (and therefore there is a standardization formula), the judge added that it's a matter of perception as to which Board is tougher and the assessment is best left to the experts.

"If the experts have devised the formula, how can we enter into it?" Justice Misra asked. The judge subsequently added, "What happens here is, there is a balancing of the Boards. Otherwise, you may be right saying that one Board may be opted by brighter students, the other may be opted by less brighter students. But all that is hypothetical. If some policy is revised, there are bound to be some pitfalls. But how can we enter into that?"

At one point, Pais contended that the appointed experts advised against the change, but the civil servants went forward with the change. On this, Justice Misra said, "If the administration takes a decision that we are not going to adopt such global standards, we are going to adopt our country's own standards...what can we do now?"

The judge also stated that the petitioners did not have any "vested right" in how marks are going to be dealt with and evaluated across all Boards. Besides, the change applied to all students, not just them.

To recap, initially, a single bench of the Kerala High Court rejected a similar plea, noting that the introduction of the new scheme of standardisation of marks was a matter of policy of the government and Courts, not being experts in academic matters, can interfere only in exceptional circumstances of arbitrariness, mala fide or prejudice caused to students.

"The system of normalization recommended by the Internal Committee is not a new system. It has been in vogue in the State of Tamil Nadu for several years without any complaint. As noted earlier, the said system does not reveal any reduction in marks for any student from any Board. In the absence of any explicit arbitrariness or prejudice being shown to have been caused to any student due to the method of normalization adopted by the Prospectus 2026, this Court ought to restrain itself from interfering with such a process," the Court remarked.

The petitioners before the High Court were students who intended to take part in the State entrance examination. According to them, the new normalisation brought in by the 2026 Prospectus created great prejudice to CBSE students and the same was implemented without any expert study.

The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations took the stand that the government was entitled to lay down prescriptions in the prospectus in accordance with its policy and the same could not be tested. Further, it was also argued that the new standardisation was brought in for the very purpose of removing the disparity that used to exist with the earlier standardisation methods.

It was also pointed out that an Internal Committee comprising the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, the Director of Technical Education and the Director of SCERT reviewed the standardisation process and it was decided that the normalisation method adopted in Tamil Nadu could be adopted in Kerala as well.

Ultimately, the Court opined that even though minor errors can be there in new schemes, that is not a reason for judicial interference. It further rejected a contention regarding absence of experts in the Internal Committee.

Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed before a Division Bench, which dismissed their plea. Following the dismissal, they approached the Supreme Court.

Appearance: Sr Adv Trideep Pais, Advocates Shiyas KR, Manish Sharma and Sakshi Jain (for petitioners)

Case Title: JOMON JAISON AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 22685/2026