Anshika Tiwari-
The High Court of Karnataka has refused to interfere with the State Government’s decision to conduct SSLC (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) exams in the physical mode for the students of Class X, starting 19th July 2021.
The matter was adjudicated upon by a two-judge bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar. The judges observed that holding exams was “in the interest of students”.
In addition, the honourable court observed that the state has taken adequate precautionary measures against the Covid-19 pandemic
Therefore, they dismissed the Public Interest Litigation as lacking merit. In addition, it said that the petitioner was not able to bring to light any arbitrariness in the State’s decision to hold SSLC exams.
A PIL was filed before the Karnataka Court challenging the state government’s decision to conduct SSLC or Class 10 board exams amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners sought the cancellation of the exams.
In the petition, it was argued that if students are forced to attend exams, there are chances of spread of the Covid -19 infection.
In this respect, the court said that neither the State nor any parent will force his or her ward to attend the exam. The plea further suggested a method of evaluation for SSLC students, similar to that of 2nd PUC students, who will be promoted based on their past performance.
The court drew an analogy and said that merely because the II PUC exam was cancelled, it cannot be argued that SSLC exams should also be cancelled. It observed,
“In the case of 2nd PUC students, there was data available to assess the marks. However, as far as the SSLC students are concerned, there is no such data; therefore we find there is no arbitrariness in State holding exams on July 19”.
Last year too, the state had dismissed a similar petition filed before it. It permitted the State to hold exams with certain additional guidelines.’
Guidelines framed by the Court last year have been incorporated into the Statement of Purpose for this year; the Advocate General of Karnataka informed the bench.