Delhi HC Dismisses CBSE Appeal On Additional Subject Rule, Says Change Not Properly Notified

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), holding that its decision to discontinue the “additional subject” category for private candidates cannot be applied to the 2026 board examinations as the amendment to the Examination Bye-Laws was not communicated in a proper and reasonable manner.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld the earlier order of the Single Judge directing the CBSE to permit the concerned students to register for an additional subject for the 2026 examination session.

The dispute arose after several students who had cleared their Class XII examinations in 2024 and 2025 sought to appear in an additional subject as private candidates.

Under Clause 43(i) of the unamended Examination Bye-Laws, such students were entitled to take an additional subject within two years of passing the board examination.

In September 2025, however, the CBSE issued public notices for the 2025-2026 examination cycle without including the additional subject category. Students who had already been preparing for the examination challenged the move before the High Court.

Before the Division Bench, the CBSE submitted that its Governing Body had resolved on 26.12.2024 to discontinue the additional subject option in order to align with the National Education Policy.

The decision was approved by the Controlling Authority on 22.01.2025 and the amendment was uploaded on 27.02.2025 on the Board’s website under the tab “Governing Body Minutes.”

The Board argued that the students could not invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation as the change was a policy decision taken in public interest. It further contended that the students were not left remediless since they could opt for additional subjects through the National Institute of Open Schooling.

The students, on the other hand, contended that the amendment had never been properly notified. They argued that merely uploading the minutes of the Governing Body meeting under a specific tab did not amount to due publication of a change in the Examination Bye-Laws.

Many of them had already spent one to two years preparing for the additional subject in terms of the existing regulatory framework.

Examining the issue of publication, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, reiterating that subordinate legislation becomes effective only when it is published through a reasonable and accessible mode.

The Bench observed that a student seeking information regarding additional subjects would ordinarily look at the “Examination Bye-Laws” section on the CBSE website and not the “Governing Body Minutes” tab.

It also noted that the CBSE had, in the past, issued separate notifications for amendments to its Bye-Laws and that the failure to follow its own established practice had caused serious prejudice to the students.

On the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court held that the principle is a well-recognised facet of Indian administrative law and operates as a safeguard against arbitrary state action. The students had a clear entitlement under Clause 43(i) and had structured their academic choices on that basis, with some even deferring higher education to prepare for the additional subject.

The Court held that the amendment could at best be treated as effective from 15.09.2025, when it was formally reflected in the public notice, and could not be applied retrospectively to students who had already commenced their preparation.

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench directed the CBSE to make the necessary arrangements for registration of the concerned students within three working days, if the process had not already been completed.

The Court concluded that the CBSE’s action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and that students could not be made to suffer due to the Board’s failure to properly notify a significant change in its rules.

Case Title: Central Board of Secondary Education v. Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya & Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Judgment: 10.02.2026