The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside orders cancelling Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) examination centres of several colleges solely on the basis of a single instance of cheating by one student, and held such action to be arbitrary and disproportionate.
The Court found that while allotment of an examination centre may fall within the realm of administrative discretion, withdrawal of a centre which has been functioning for years, creates serious civil consequences and therefore it must satisfy the requirements of fairness, transparency and clear reasoning.
The Court specifically ruled that,
“In administrative law, particularly where an order has grave civil consequences, reasons are the heartbeat of the decision. Recording of reasons is not a mere formality; it demonstrates application of mind, assures fairness, enables judicial review, and instills public confidence that the power has not been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.”
The Division Bench further noted that during board examinations, supervisory and invigilation staff are appointed by the administration. If lapses occur at that level, accountability must be fixed individually, rather than imposing a collective penalty on the institution itself.
The said judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by various educational institutions and various students.
According to facts of the case, petitions challenged orders dated 18 December 2025 passed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, by which the HSC examination centres of the petitioner’s junior colleges were cancelled. The Board’s case was that during the February-March 2025 board examinations, a student was found copying/cheating in the English paper.
The petitioner/institutions contended that the incident was solitary and isolated, that there was neither mass copying nor any institutional connivance or negligence, and yet the extreme step of cancelling the examination centres was taken without proper inquiry, without recording reasons, and in breach of the prescribed procedure. According to the petitioners, the action of the respondent not only tarnished the institutions’ reputation but also caused serious hardship to students.
The core issues before the Court were:
1. Whether an entire examination centres can be cancelled on the basis of a single instance of cheating by one student,
2. Whether the Board’s orders were in conformity with the prescribed procedure, timelines and standards,
3. Whether the impugned orders were proportionate and reasoned, and
4. Whether due consideration was given to the impact of such cancellation on students’ interests and the reputation of the institutions.
While examining the aforesaid issues, the Court found that,
“The order is cryptic. It does not describe the nature of the irregularity, whether it was copying by a candidate, whether any material was seized, whether any supervisory lapse was found, whether any complicity was attributed, or whether the incident was of mass scale or isolated.”
The Court further observed that,
“It does not demonstrate consideration of the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice. It does not record why the explanation was unacceptable or why a lesser corrective measure would not suffice.”
On the factual matrix, the Court also noted that under the applicable standards, a decision was required to be taken in June-July and communicated in a timely manner, whereas the impugned orders were passed in December, creating uncertainty on the eve of the forthcoming examinations.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders by which examination centres were cancelled and directed the Board to restore the centres of the petitioner/institutions for the SSC and HSC examinations commencing from February 2026.
The Court also issued certain directions, including that institutions shall furnish written undertakings to conduct examinations in a fair and transparent manner.
Further, the Court directed the Board to ensure that supervisory and invigilation staff are properly trained and accountable, and any future action for closure of an examination centre shall be taken only by the competent committee, strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and by passing a reasoned order.
Accordingly, the Court emphasised that while a cheating-free examination system is imperative, the objective cannot be pursued by imposing arbitrary punishment in disregard of law and procedure. Thus, fairness, proportionality and the interests of students must be paramount consideration.Â
Case: Krushi va Gramin Vikas Pratishtan’s Raje Shahaji Kashinath Mahavidyalaya vs State of Maharashtra
Date of Order: 19.01.2026
See Order: Krushi va Gramin Vikas Pratishtan’s Raje Shahaji Kashinath Mahavidyalaya vs State of Maharashtra
