The Union government informed the Supreme Court on Monday (June 22, 2026) that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has framed a fresh policy for evaluating private candidates in West Asia whose results could not be declared due to the ongoing conflict in the region.

A Bench comprising Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Vipul M. Pancholi was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the CBSE, that a new policy had been formulated to address the concerns of similarly placed students affected by the cancellation of examinations in Gulf countries owing to the regional conflict.

Mr. Mehta submitted that the policy, notified on June 21, includes a separate assessment formula for private candidates appearing for the board examinations.

The top court was hearing a petition filed by a private candidate, Pransu Jigarkumar Patel, seeking declaration of the result of his Class XI improvement examination, which was suspended due to the conflict.

Regular vs private candidates

Mr. Mehta informed the Bench that while both regular and private candidates had been affected by the cancellation of examinations, evaluating private candidates posed a challenge because they did not have school-based assessment records, such as periodic tests, half-yearly examinations and pre-board assessments, that could be used for evaluation.

The law officer submitted that the CBSE had, on June 21, notified a separate assessment policy for such candidates. Under the scheme, marks in subjects for which examinations could not be conducted would be computed by assigning a 40% weightage to theory marks obtained in the Class X board examination and a 60% weightage to theory marks secured in the Class XII board examination. He pointed out that for assessing a Class X student’s performance, the average of the candidate’s three highest-scoring subjects would be taken and normalised against the maximum marks prescribed for each subject.

Mr. Patel had appeared as a private candidate for the 2026 Class XII improvement examinations in physics, chemistry, mathematics, English and computer science in Saudi Arabia. However, after the CBSE cancelled certain Class XII examinations in several West Asian countries on March 15 amid the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict, he was able to appear only for the physics and chemistry papers.

The CBSE subsequently issued a notification titled ‘Assessment scheme for declaration of results of Class XII in West Asian countries’ on March 27 to facilitate the declaration of results for students affected by the cancellations. Under the scheme, marks for the cancelled papers were to be derived from school assessments, including the “best of the three marks obtained in quarterly, half-yearly and pre-board examinations”.

While the Board declared the results on May 13, Mr. Patel claimed that his result had been withheld and that his status was reflected as “RL” (Result Later), prompting him to approach the top court.

He contended that his academic records were available with the school and could have been relied upon for assessment, and that the refusal to do so was adversely affecting his plans to pursue higher studies.

On Monday, Mr. Mehta informed the Bench that Mr. Patel’s result, computed under the new policy, had already been emailed to him and would also be made available through his DigiLocker account. He added that candidates dissatisfied with the results would have the option of appearing in the next regular examination.

Availing re-evaluation

The counsel appearing for Mr. Patel, while acknowledging that the result had been declared, urged the court to grant him liberty to seek copies of his answer scripts and avail of re-evaluation in accordance with the applicable CBSE regulations.

Justice Bhatti, however, pointed out that no such relief had been sought in the petition. He observed that courts generally exercise restraint in examination-related disputes and noted that the petitioner’s grievance had been substantially addressed in view of the new policy and the declaration of his result.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition after taking the new policy on record. It clarified that if the petitioner had any other grievance, he would be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law.