CBSE’s On-Screen Marking System Faces Legal Challenge Over Class 12 Evaluation Concerns
The controversy surrounding the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) new digital evaluation method has taken a legal turn. The National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) has approached the Delhi High Court with a public interest litigation, demanding an impartial inquiry into alleged discrepancies in the assessment of Class 12 answer sheets.
Students Report Multiple Issues With Digital Evaluation
Following the announcement of Class 12 board results, a significant number of students across the country have reported encountering various problems with the newly introduced On-Screen Marking (OSM) system. According to the petition filed by the student body, common complaints include receiving poorly scanned copies of answer sheets, missing pages within uploaded documents, incomplete uploads of entire answer booklets, and mismatched page sequences. Additionally, several students have alleged receiving lower marks than expected and facing difficulties accessing the verification portal.
NSUI representatives argue that these technical glitches have created unnecessary hurdles for students at a critical juncture in their academic journey. The organization emphasizes that Class 12 board examination scores play a pivotal role in determining college admissions, higher education opportunities, and scholarship eligibility. Any error in the evaluation process, they contend, could have far-reaching consequences on a student’s future prospects.
Massive Demand for Answer Sheet Access
The petition highlights that after the results were published, CBSE issued multiple public notices acknowledging technical problems with the portal designed to provide scanned copies of evaluated answer sheets. These issues reportedly forced the board to extend deadlines on several occasions due to the overwhelming volume of requests.
According to the legal filing, more than 127,000 applications were submitted by students seeking scanned copies of their evaluated answer booklets, relating to approximately 387,000 answer sheets. NSUI points to this substantial number of requests as clear evidence of widespread student apprehension regarding the new digital marking system. The petition further notes that numerous students have lodged complaints about unclear or missing scanned documents, unmarked responses, and other evaluation irregularities.
Demand for Extended Verification Window and Manual Review
The public interest litigation draws attention to the disparity in treatment between students whose answer sheets were scanned and evaluated without technical issues, and those whose documents suffered from system malfunctions. The petitioners argue that students should not bear the consequences of failures that originate from the system itself rather than any fault on their part.
Criticizing the existing grievance redressal mechanism as inadequate, the petition states that students have limited digital options available to them. Furthermore, there is no robust alternative for physical examination of answer sheets when disputes arise regarding scanned copies. NSUI has therefore requested the High Court to direct CBSE to extend the verification and re-evaluation period by an additional month. The organization also seeks permission for manual and physical inspection of answer booklets in cases where students question the accuracy of scanned copies or the evaluation itself.
Call for Independent Investigation and Clear Guidelines
The petition urges the court to order an independent probe into the irregularities, technical failures, and shortcomings that have emerged within the OSM system. Additionally, NSUI has requested the court to instruct CBSE to establish appropriate safeguards and well-defined guidelines for future digital evaluation processes.
In cases where students have suffered due to no fault of their own—such as lost, illegible, or incorrectly evaluated answer sheets—the student organization has proposed that affected individuals receive compensatory marks. The petition was filed through a team of lawyers representing the student body.
The legal action underscores the growing concerns among students and education stakeholders about the readiness and reliability of fully digital examination evaluation systems. As the matter moves through the judicial process, it raises important questions about how educational boards balance technological advancement with fairness and accuracy in student assessment.
