Delhi HC issues notice on PIL alleging irregularities in CBSE's On-Screen Marking system

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on a public interest litigation (PIL) raising concerns over the newly introduced On-Screen Marking (OSM) system for evaluation of Class 12 board examination answer sheets. 

A Bench of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Madhu Jain sought responses from the Union government and CBSE on the plea filed by the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), and posted the matter for further hearing on June 12.

The PIL has questioned the fairness, transparency and reliability of the digital evaluation mechanism adopted by CBSE, alleging that thousands of students across the country faced issues such as blurred scans, missing pages, mismatched answer sheets, incomplete uploads and unexpectedly low marks following the declaration of Class 12 results.

The OSM system is a digital evaluation process under which physical answer sheets are scanned, digitally masked to conceal students’ identities and assessed by examiners on computer screens.

Filed through NSUI President Vinod Jhakhar, the petition contended that Class 12 board examination marks have a direct bearing on admissions to universities and professional institutions, scholarship opportunities and future academic prospects.

“Class XII board marks are not only a record of academic performance. They determine admission to universities, professional colleges, scholarship opportunities, entrance eligibility and the overall academic future of students,” the plea stated.

According to the petition, the concerns raised are not isolated instances but indicate a larger systemic issue affecting lakhs of students who appeared for the examinations under the newly introduced digital assessment framework.

The PIL referred to CBSE’s public communications acknowledging technical glitches in the portal used for providing scanned copies of answer books to students.

It highlighted that around 1,27,146 applications relating to nearly 3,87,399 scanned answer books were submitted within a short period after the portal was restored.

“The said figure itself reflects an extraordinary level of concern and lack of confidence amongst students regarding the process. When such a large number of students seek scanned copies immediately after result declaration, the matter cannot be treated as a routine post-result formality,” the petition said.

The plea argued that students whose answer sheets were properly scanned and evaluated cannot be equated with those whose scripts were allegedly affected by scanning defects, mismatch errors or technical failures. “Students cannot be made to suffer because of deficiencies in a system introduced by the authorities themselves,” it said, alleging violation of Article 14 of the Constitution on account of arbitrary and unequal treatment.

The petition has also questioned the adequacy of the grievance redressal mechanism available to students, claiming that candidates were left with limited digital remedies and lacked access to any meaningful process for manual verification or independent rechecking of disputed answer sheets.

Seeking judicial intervention, the PIL prayed for directions to reopen the verification portal for one month, permit manual rechecking and physical verification of answer sheets in disputed cases, order an independent inquiry into the alleged irregularities, and frame safeguards and guidelines for future digital evaluation systems.