The Supreme Court disposed of a petition filed by a Class XII private CBSE candidate from Saudi Arabia after the Centre informed it about a special policy for Gulf students affected by cancelled examinations. The Bench noted that the petitioner’s concerns were substantially addressed.
The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of a petition filed by a Class XII private candidate from Saudi Arabia after the Central Government informed the Court that a special national policy had been introduced to address the concerns of private students in Gulf countries whose CBSE examinations were cancelled due to the prevailing international crisis in the region.
A Bench comprising Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi took note of the policy notified by the Centre on June 21, 2026, and observed that the grievance raised by the petitioner had been substantially addressed.
The petition was filed by Pransu Jigarkumar Patel, a private candidate residing in Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia, who approached the Supreme Court after his Class XII Improvement Examination result was not declared by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after several CBSE examinations scheduled across seven Gulf countries were cancelled due to security concerns and regional tensions. Patel had appeared as a private candidate for the CBSE Class XII Improvement Examination, 2026 in subjects including Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, English and Computer Science.
ALSO READ: CBSE’s New Three-Language Mandate Challenged in Supreme Court, Hearing Set for Next Week
The petitioner challenged CBSE’s failure to declare his result, stating that the delay had affected his higher education opportunities.
CBSE had earlier issued an Assessment Scheme on March 27, 2026, for students impacted by the cancellation of examinations. However, according to Patel, the scheme mainly addressed regular school students and did not provide a clear mechanism for private candidates appearing for improvement examinations.
As a result, when CBSE announced Class XII results on May 13, 2026, Patel’s result was withheld and reflected as “R.L. (Result Later).”
Plea Before Supreme Court
In his petition, Patel argued that private candidates were placed in a difficult situation because they did not have schools that could provide internal assessment records such as quarterly, half-yearly or pre-board examination marks.
He sought directions to CBSE either to declare his result by applying an appropriate assessment method or allow him to appear in a special examination.
The petitioner had also submitted multiple representations before CBSE on May 17, May 21 and May 30, 2026, requesting resolution of the issue. However, according to the plea, his result remained pending.
Earlier, on June 8, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and sought a response regarding the concerns raised by the student.
During the hearing on June 13, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the government was working on a policy framework to address the difficulties faced by similarly placed students.
When the matter was taken up again, the Solicitor General informed the Bench that students affected by the cancellation of CBSE examinations in Gulf countries fell into two separate categories regular school students and private candidates.
He explained that regular students could be evaluated through their schools’ academic records, including internal assessments and pre-board performance. However, private candidates did not have access to such institutional records, requiring a different approach.
To resolve this issue, the Centre notified a separate assessment mechanism for private candidates.
Under the new policy, marks for cancelled subjects would be calculated by assigning 40% weightage to theory marks obtained in Class X Board examinations and 60% weightage to theory marks secured in Class XII examinations.
For calculating Class X performance, the policy provides that the average of the student’s three highest-scoring subjects would be considered after normalising the marks according to the maximum marks prescribed for each subject.
In Patel’s case, examinations for Physics and Chemistry had already been conducted, while papers for Mathematics, English and Computer Science were cancelled. Accordingly, marks for Physics and Chemistry were awarded based on his actual performance, whereas the cancelled subjects were evaluated according to the newly notified formula.
The Solicitor General informed the Supreme Court that Patel’s result had already been prepared under the revised policy and showed an improvement compared to his earlier academic performance. The result was communicated to the student through email and would also be uploaded on DigiLocker.
The policy further provides an option for students who are not satisfied with their assessed marks to appear in the next regular CBSE examination.
The counsel appearing for Patel acknowledged that the result had been declared but requested the Court to preserve the petitioner’s right to seek answer scripts and pursue re-evaluation under CBSE regulations. However, the Bench observed that such reliefs were not part of the original petition filed before the Court.
Justice S.V. Bhatti noted that courts generally exercise caution while interfering in examination-related matters and observed that the primary grievance raised by the petitioner had already been resolved. The Supreme Court therefore disposed of the petition while clarifying that if any further grievance remained, the petitioner would be free to pursue appropriate remedies available under law.
The case highlights the difficulties faced by students studying abroad during emergency situations and the challenges involved in designing fair assessment mechanisms for different categories of candidates.
The Centre’s policy attempts to address the gap between regular and private candidates by creating a separate evaluation formula for students who could not appear in cancelled examinations due to circumstances beyond their control.
Case Title: Pransu Jigarkumar Patel v. The Union of India