Summary: A court battle unfolds as several schools in Maharashtra fight against the cancellation of their exam centers due to one cheating incident. The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, sided with the schools, stressing the need for fairness and proper procedures.
In January 2026, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, with judges Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar in charge, heard several requests from schools. These schools were upset about their exam centers being canceled by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education.
The problem began during the February-March 2025 board exams. On February 11, 2025, a student was caught cheating during the English paper at one of the exam centers. The schools argued this was a one-time event involving just one student, not a widespread issue.
"The rest of the examinations were conducted smoothly," the schools claimed.
Despite the one-off nature of the incident, the Maharashtra State Board canceled the approval of these centers on December 18, 2025. The schools received a warning in July 2025 and responded, but their exam centers were still canceled.
The court found the board's decision too harsh and without proper reasoning. It noted that the cancellation seemed random, especially since similar incidents at other centers didn't lead to the same action.
"A zero-tolerance policy towards cheating cannot mean unreasoned, automatically imposed collective punishment," the judgment stated.
The court canceled the orders to close the exam centers and instructed the board to reopen them. The schools were required to promise to ensure fair exams in the future.
Procedure Matters: The court stressed the importance of following proper steps and giving clear reasons for decisions that affect schools and students.
Fairness in Action: The ruling highlighted the need for balanced responses to incidents, rather than blanket punishments.
Future Directions: The court also set guidelines for future actions, making sure that any similar decisions would need thorough explanation and adherence to established procedures.
This case serves as a reminder that while keeping exams honest is crucial, actions taken to enforce it must be fair, clear, and justified.
