"Judicial review of examination bodies' decisions raises questions about the separation of powers and institutional competence." Comment.

Examination bodies like CBSE and NTA perform a public function affecting careers and livelihoods, making them amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 [3]. Yet courts reviewing marks and evaluation methods risk stepping into administrative and academic terrain. The balance lies in reviewing process, not scores.

Why judicial review is legitimate and necessary

• Absence of an appellate forum: no statutory tribunal hears examination grievances; the writ court is the only remedy left to an aggrieved candidate [3].
• Natural justice and fair procedure: in the 2026 CBSE On-Screen Marking (OSM) row, students reported blurred scans, missing pages and unmarked answers, with a one-week re-evaluation window for 1.68 lakh applicants; the Supreme Court sought an affidavit on remedial measures [4].
• Systemic reform trigger: in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024), the Court ordered a revised answer key on IIT-Delhi's expert opinion and mandated an expert committee on examination security [1].

Where competence and separation of powers constrain the court

• Academic deference: in Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth (1984), the Court held judges must not substitute their view on academic matters and cannot order revaluation absent statutory provision [2].
• Polycentric consequences: grace marks alter the ranks of an entire cohort; the Centre accordingly told the Court that grace marks are "not possible" in the OSM case [4].
• Institutional limits: the Court declined a NEET-UG re-test as tainted candidates could not be separated on available material — a data question, not a legal one [1].
• Prolonged supervision converts the judiciary into an examination administrator.

A calibrated middle path Courts should test procedural fairness, non-arbitrariness and transparency, while leaving evaluation standards and remedial design to the expert body under judicial monitoring [1][2].

Judicial review here supplements, not supplants, administrative authority. The durable answer is institutional: a statutory grievance-redressal and appellate mechanism, and pilot-testing of digital evaluation before rollout. Strong internal accountability makes the writ court a rare last resort rather than a routine examiner.