The Kerala High Court has upheld the State Government’s revised normalization formula for engineering admissions under the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses, 2026, rejecting a challenge by the CBSE students who alleged that the new methodology unfairly disadvantaged candidates from their board.

The petitioners, students from the CBSE board aspiring for engineering admissions in Kerala, challenged the 2026 Prospectus, arguing that the State arbitrarily replaced the standardization system used since 2012 for CBSE, ICSE and Kerala State Board students with a new normalization formula that allegedly disadvantaged CBSE candidates and was introduced without any scientific study or expert recommendation.

Accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions challenging Clauses 1.4 and 9.7.4 of the 2026 prospectus, which introduced a new normalization process for calculating marks obtained in qualifying examinations while preparing the engineering rank list

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “…introduction of the new scheme of normalization of marks is a matter of policy. Minor errors can also arise while introducing a new scheme. At times, the errors would become visible or identifiable only after it is put to test. However, merely because there can be minor errors in a system of examination and evaluation introduced by the Government, the court ought not to sit in judgment over the wisdom of such a scheme or system unless serious prejudice is expressly shown to exist in the new scheme or method. Though absolute equality is the ideal situation, that may not be possible to be achieved, especially when there are different Boards following different curricula”.

Advocate T.S. Harikumar appeared for the petitioners and P. G. Pramod, Senior Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

The petitioners contended that Kerala had departed from its long-standing standardization methodology without any detailed expert study and had adopted a new normalization formula based on the model followed in Tamil Nadu. According to them, the change was arbitrary and prejudicial to students studying under the CBSE curriculum.

However, the Bench to that contention, noted in the judgment, “…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…”.

The State defended the revised policy, arguing that the earlier standardization method often resulted in a downward revision of marks for students from certain boards and generated persistent complaints regarding inequitable treatment. An Internal Committee comprising the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the Director of Technical Education and the Director of SCERT reviewed the existing system and recommended adoption of the Tamil Nadu-style normalization method.

Accepting the State’s stand, the Court observed that the revised formula treats the highest mark obtained in each board as 100 per cent and seeks to place students from different educational boards on a common platform. The Court noted that the petitioners failed to establish any arbitrariness, mala fides, or constitutional infirmity in the new system.

“It needs no elaborate discussion that, in academic matters, judicial review should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances. As the Court is not an expert, it should be loath to interfere with the decisions of the academic bodies, unless there is ex facie arbitrariness or malafides involved. Similarly, in matters of policy also, the court should be reluctant to interfere, unless the policy is patently absurd or malafide. The court ought not to substitute or supplant its judgment or views for that of the body entrusted with the power to take decisions on academic matters, especially those relating to the method of evaluation of answer sheets. As long as a body entrusted with the power to identify a methodology for conduct and evaluation of an examination, acts within the sphere of its authority, without arbitrariness or malafides or other extrinsic reasons, the court should always refrain from interfering, lest the whole process gets jeopardised”, the Bench observed.

“In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the power of the Government to change the scheme and system of examination and evaluation. Hence, the challenge against the method of normalization introduced through the Prospectus 2026, is not legally tenable”, the Bench said.

Holding that the Government was competent to revise the admission methodology as a matter of policy, the Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the validity of the 2026 engineering admission normalization formula.

Cause Title: Jomon Jaison & Ors. v. The State Of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:39956)

Appearances:

Petitioners: T.S. Harikumar, P.B. Sahasranaman, Advocates.

Respondents: P.G.Pramod, Senior Government Pleader.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: