Insistence on Class 12 CBSE, ICSE physical exams ‘irrational’, says Supreme Court

The Union of India’s query “who is to blame if a student dies” noticed the Supreme Court toss out insistent pleas by some mother and father claiming that the COVID-19 graph is in free fall and the interior evaluation schemes for Class 12 CBSE and ICSE college students must be chucked in favour of physical exams.

A Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari on Tuesday stood by the Union’s precept that “every student’s life is precious”.

Also learn: Class 12 marks: SC approves CBSE’s 30:30:40 method

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, for the Union, stated, “Suppose a number of students who attend written exams get the infection, suppose a student dies… Who is to blame? It is neither safe nor prudent to have written exams”.

Directive to A.P.

The court docket requested Andhra Pradesh, which intends to conduct the State Board exams however has deferred a remaining determination to July, to make its place clear in an affidavit by Wednesday. “If there is even a single fatality, we will make the State responsible,” it warned.

Kerala had filed an affidavit choosing exams for Class 11. The court docket stated it could go orders on the State’s alternative.

The court docket discovered the insistence on physical exams “irrational”. Justice Maheshwari stated college students can’t be left in uncertainty about their well being and future.

Also learn: Class 12: Optional exams ‘anytime between August 15 and September 15’

The CBSE and the Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE), which conducts the ICSE exams, shared the Union’s apprehensions about placing kids in hurt’s approach, particularly with medical specialists warning a few looming third wave.

“Children are most vulnerable, that too, without vaccination,” advocate J.K. Das, for the CISCE, stated.

‘Assessment schemes fair’

The court docket stated the CBSE and CISCE evaluation schemes have been “fair and reasonable” and brought about no prejudice to the scholars.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for a mother and father’ affiliation, argued that college students must be allowed, on the very threshold, to decide on between inside evaluation and written exams.

Mr. Venugopal countered, “In the present system, a student gets the best of two worlds. If he or she has not scored good marks in the internal assessment, they can opt for physical exams which would be held when the situation is conducive. Mr. Singh’s suggestion takes away the student’s choice to improve his marks”.

The Attorney General quelled apprehensions that completely different dates for declaration of outcomes by the CBSE, CISCE and the State Boards would result in college students of 1 board stealing a march over the others. “The UGC would wait for all the boards to declare their results before announcing the dates for admissions to colleges and institutions,” he assured.

Result panels in colleges

Mr. Venugopal refuted claims that the evaluation schemes facilitated “manipulation of marks”. He defined that each college would have a Result Committee to certify the marks based mostly on reasoned choices. “Besides, manipulation would mean forgery, which attracts a punishment of seven years’ imprisonment… Will any school principal want that?,” he said.

The high regulation officer objected to a submission that the CBSE and the CISCE ought to observe the identical standards of their respective evaluation schemes.

The court docket acknowledged his reasoning that the CBSE and the ICSE have been “independent and autonomous bodies” and the factors have been fastened by specialists after lengthy deliberations.