CBSE’s Abrupt Policy Shift on Additional Subjects Violates Legitimate Expectation of 2025 Batch Students: Delhi HC
Court holds sudden withdrawal of additional-subject option without notice arbitrary; policy changes must operate prospectively and respect legitimate expectation of students
Justice Jasmeet Singh, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to permit students of the 2025 examination batch to appear as private candidates for an additional subject, holding that the Board cannot retrospectively apply a policy change to the detriment of students who had planned their academic course based on the existing scheme.
The Court also invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation, noting that CBSE, as a public authority, is bound to act in a fair and transparent manner. Students who had relied on the Board’s declared examination scheme could not be placed at a disadvantage by an abrupt change in policy midway.
Accordingly, a bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “While the CBSE undoubtedly possesses the authority to amend its Bye Laws, such power must be exercised in a fair and prospective manner. A policy change which was not notified in the manner prescribed by law, which creates a disqualification, without prior notice or transitional protection and which adversely affects students who have already altered their position and taken a gap year, cannot be sustained. The impugned notifications, insofar as they apply to the petitioners who passed Class XII in 2025 and acted upon the existing Bye Laws, suffer from arbitrariness, violate the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, and fail to meet the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.
“...These requirements presuppose that such subjects have been pursued as part of an integrated academic curriculum under a recognised Board. In this context, directing the students who have already passed Class XII under CBSE to seek recourse through NIOS disrupts the continuity of their academic record and undermines the coherence of the education system itself. In such a case the student would have to undergo the examination of all 5 subjects, which can never be a viable option”, the bench further noted.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for the petitioners and Sahaj Garg, SPC appeared for the respondents.
In the present matter, a writ petition was filed by students who had completed their Class XII examination in 2024 and had taken a drop year with the legitimate expectation of appearing in 2025 as private candidates for an additional subject, as was permitted under the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws.
However, CBSE subsequently withdrew this option through a policy decision, effectively disqualifying the petitioners from registering for the additional subject.
Therefore, allowing the petition, the High Court held that policy changes affecting substantive rights of students must operate prospectively, especially when students have already acted upon the prevailing rules. The Court observed that the petitioners had structured their academic choices on the basis of an existing regulatory framework, and a sudden withdrawal of the benefit without prior notice was arbitrary and unfair.
The Court while rejecting CBSE’s justification for the withdrawal, clarified that while the Board is competent to amend its bye-laws and examination policies, such amendments cannot be applied retrospectively so as to unsettle accrued rights or expectations, particularly in the context of education where academic planning is time-sensitive.
Accordingly, the High Court directed CBSE to allow the petitioners to register and appear as private candidates for the additional subject in the 2025 examination cycle.
The bench made it clear that the relief was confined to students similarly situated as the petitioners and that CBSE would be free to apply the revised policy prospectively in future batches.
Cause Title: Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:948]
Petitioners: Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv., Karan Nambiar, Lzafeer Ahmad B F, Abeer Malik, Shubham Arun, Advocates.
Respondents: Sahaj Garg, SPC, Manisha Singh, Advocates.