The Bombay High Court has delivered a decisive ruling affirming that withholding examination results of students, even due to procedural disputes, constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to education. The judgment underscores the state’s affirmative duty to ensure timely access to academic outcomes, particularly when students are poised to advance to the next academic cycle.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Renuka Nursing School, sought judicial intervention to secure the declaration of results for two students - Deepak Sundar Thombre and Sushma Sudhakar Nagargoje - who had been permitted by the Court to appear for the First Year GNM examination despite documentation irregularities. Despite the Court’s prior direction to facilitate their participation, the State authorities withheld their results, citing alleged non-compliance with procedural norms.
Procedural History
- 25.07.2025: Bombay High Court issued a speaking order permitting the two students to submit documents and appear for the examination.
- 22.09.2025: Respondent No.2 misinterpreted the order and imposed an additional condition requiring physical submission of records before 5:00 p.m. on the same day.
- After 22.09.2025: The two students appeared for and completed the examination.
- Results declared on 11.02.2025: Results for all other students were published, but the two students’ results were deliberately excluded.
- 16.01.2026: Civil Application filed to compel result declaration; adjourned due to paucity of time.
- 04.02.2026: Respondent No.2 cancelled the Vakalatnama of its advocate, Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, without ensuring continuity of representation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) declaration of the two students’ results; (2) direction to include them in the list of eligible candidates for Second Year admission; and (3) condemnation of the State’s arbitrary conduct in terminating legal representation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether withholding examination results of students who have duly appeared for an exam, despite prior judicial directions, violates their fundamental right to education under Article 21A and the principle of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the State’s refusal to declare results was arbitrary and punitive, violating the Court’s earlier order and the students’ right to timely academic progression. Reliance was placed on Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, which recognized education as integral to human dignity under Article 21. It was contended that the State’s conduct - delaying results and abruptly terminating legal representation - demonstrated bad faith and procedural malice.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a formal written reply but attempted to justify non-declaration by alleging incomplete documentation. The cancellation of the advocate’s Vakalatnama was presented as an internal administrative decision, unrelated to the merits of the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the sequence of events and found that the State had not only complied with its earlier order by allowing the students to sit for the exam, but had also received their answer scripts. The Court emphasized that once a student has appeared for an examination, the State has a non-delegable duty to evaluate and declare results.
"The future of the students cannot be so withheld. The result must be declared without further delay."
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on procedural irregularities, noting that such grounds, if valid, should have been addressed before the examination. Withholding results after the fact amounted to a denial of substantive rights. The Court further decried the cancellation of the advocate’s Vakalatnama on the day of hearing as a tactic to evade accountability, calling it a violation of natural justice and an abuse of process.
The Court held that Article 21A, read with Article 14 and Article 21, imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that no student is deprived of academic progression due to administrative negligence or caprice.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that withholding examination results after a student has appeared for the exam violates the right to education under Article 21A. The State was directed to declare the results of the two students before 5:00 p.m. on the date of the order, enabling them to apply for Second Year admission.
