‘Terrible rat race for medical, engineering seats’: What Madras high court said on Indian education

CHENNAI: Parents in India make children run a terrible rat race to secure admission in a medical or engineering college, while the rest of the world sees the purpose of education as learning, the Madras high court has said.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the court made the observation while permitting a CBSE student to appear for the mathematics examination as an additional subject in Class XII, considering the peculiar facts of the case and the educational circumstances faced by the student.

The court passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by a parent challenging the rejection of a request made to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to allow his daughter to write mathematics paper as an additional subject.

The court directed the CBSE authorities to verify whether the student had actually studied mathematics during Class XI and part of Class XII and, if satisfied, permit her to appear for the supplementary examination scheduled in March 2026.

The court observed that although educational regulations prescribe certain procedural requirements, the law must lean in favour of correcting procedural errors when the factual position shows that the student had indeed studied the subject earlier.

Background of the case
The petitioner approached the court seeking to quash an order issued by the CBSE on Jan 8, which rejected the request to allow the petitioner’s daughter to appear for mathematics examination as an additional subject in the 2025–2026 Class XII examination.

According to the petitioner, the student was initially admitted to Class XI in a CBSE school with a combination of subjects including English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. The student studied mathematics throughout Class XI and even for some time during Class XII.

However, when the subject details were submitted to the CBSE, mathematics was replaced with physical education based on advice that focusing on fewer academic subjects would help the student prepare for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and pursue medicine.

When the student was unsuccessful in the NEET examination, the family sought permission from the CBSE to allow her to take mathematics as an additional subject so she could pursue admission to engineering courses. The request was rejected by the CBSE prompting the present writ petition.

Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner contended that CBSE’s bylaw provisions allow students to take an additional subject and appear for the examination as a private candidate.

It was argued that despite the existence of this scheme, the authorities rejected the request without properly considering the circumstances of the student.

The petitioner also referred to a judgment of the Delhi high court in Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor v. Union of India, in which students were permitted to take additional subjects despite policy changes, on the ground that legitimate expectations should not be defeated.

Based on this reasoning, the petitioner sought directions to quash the CBSE order and allow the student to write the mathematics examination.

CBSE’s response
CBSE opposed the petition, arguing that the request was not permissible under its examination bylaws. The board submitted that under its regulations, Class XII is part of a two-year academic programme comprising Classes XI and XII, and a candidate must study a subject for both years in order to be eligible to appear for the board examination.

According to CBSE, an additional subject can only be offered if the student studies that subject for the required two-year period. In the present case, the board argued that mathematics was not officially recorded as the subject studied in both years, and therefore the student was not eligible to take it as an additional subject in the board examination.

The CBSE also distinguished the Delhi high court decision relied upon by the petitioner, stating that it involved a different factual situation relating to gap-year students and that an appeal against that ruling was pending before a division bench.

HC's analysis
The court examined CBSE bylaw 43, which allows candidates who have passed the board examination to offer an additional subject as a private candidate under certain conditions.

The court noted that CBSE mandates five subjects, including English, but also allows students to study one additional subject. While the board argued that mathematics had not been studied for the required two-year period, the court considered the materials placed before it, including a marksheet showing that the student had studied mathematics during the academic year 2023–2024 in Class XI.

The judge observed that education systems often become tied to competitive entrance examinations such as NEET or engineering admissions, leading parents to make last-minute subject changes in the hope of improving performance. The court noted that such decisions can sometimes place students in difficult situations when the expected outcome does not materialise.

Taking into account the fact that the student had studied mathematics throughout Class XI and for some time in Class XII, the court held that the law should lean in favour of correcting procedural irregularities where the factual position supports the student’s claim.

Legal significance
The ruling highlights the court’s approach in balancing regulatory compliance with fairness in educational matters. While CBSE’s rules require subjects to be studied for a prescribed duration, the court recognised that strict procedural adherence should not defeat substantive educational realities when credible evidence shows that the student had actually studied the subject earlier.

The final order
The high court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions that the petitioner must provide proof that the student studied mathematics in Class XI and for some period in Class XII, including school records, notebooks, and other academic materials.

If the CBSE authorities are satisfied with the evidence, they must permit the student to take mathematics as an additional subject. The court clarified that these directions were issued considering the peculiar facts of the case.

Key takeaways from the judgment
CBSE rules normally require students to study a subject for two years before appearing in the board examination. Courts may intervene when strict application of procedural rules conflicts with the factual academic record of a student.

Evidence such as school records, notebooks and evaluation documents can be relied upon to verify whether a subject was actually studied. The court emphasised that educational procedures should not override factual truth when dealing with a student’s academic future.

Why this matters
The ruling is significant for students and parents navigating complex subject choices under national education boards such as CBSE.

It illustrates the judiciary’s willingness to address exceptional cases where administrative decisions may unintentionally hinder a student’s academic prospects.

At the same time, the court’s emphasis that the order is based on the “peculiar facts” of the case indicates that such relief is likely to remain limited to rare situations where clear evidence supports the student’s claim.

Read full judgement: