Spread the love

The Bombay High Court has said [Krish Rajendra Chordiya v. State of Maharashtra] that there is no justification in Maharashtra’s legislation to prevent a student from choosing the science stream after class 10 just because the student did not choose the science stream in class 10.

A divisional court composed of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale noted that children choose their subject options in the eighth or ninth grade and that it would be absurd to expect a 14-year-old’s choice to determine their whole future.

There is no justification, in our opinion, for not later admitting 10th graders who did not take science. In reality, in SCC/ICSE schools, topic selection is done not in the tenth standard but at least a year or two earlier, around the eighth or ninth standard. The Court ruled that expecting a 14-year-old’s decision to determine his whole destiny is unreasonably high.

The National Education Policy was also mentioned by the Court in this regard.

A study at the National Education Policy strengthens our position on this issue. It is suggested to alter the complete design. According to the Court, the traditional triangle of science, arts, and commerce must be dismantled.

It was observed that the National Education Policy now placed a strong focus on spotting and developing talent as well as offering flexible learning alternatives.

If this is the direction of policy, it is difficult to understand how the 4th Respondent’s method, which is rigid and also tardy, accomplishes any goal at all. We were obligated to inquire as to whether the fourth respondent’s goal is to help students, provide for their educational chances, and support them—or if it is to find new ways to thwart them.

The decision was made after a student from Nashik who had chosen the science stream and received a class 10 grade of 92% from the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) submitted a petition.

He was admitted to the science course at Gargi Junior College and earned an honours diploma for class eleven.

Following that, he registered for the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education’s (MSBSHSE) class 12 Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) examinations. [1]

He was declared unfit for the scientific stream by the MSBSHSE after the testing period, which led to the termination of his entrance to the faculty. According to the board, the petitioner did not choose science as a topic for his class 10 assignment, which led to the decision. As a result, they concealed his results.

In light of these circumstances, the High Court looked at the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act of 1965, which restricts who can choose the scientific stream to those who earned at least 40% in science in their class 10 examinations.

According to the Act, scientific topics include general science, physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, and hygiene, among other areas that are equivalent to science.

The subjects that were selected for the petition were English, Hindi, History (together with Civics and Geography), Mathematics, Commercial Studies, and Physical Education.

Given that the ICSE board constituted an analogous board, the Bench noted the need for clarification regarding what was meant by “other comparable subjects.”

The bench said in the ruling, “The explanation itself contains a subject such as ‘physiology and hygiene’ and it is unclear to us why ‘hygiene’ is science but ‘physical education’ is not.

The ruling said that the petitioner’s performance and the length of time he was permitted to study science were important considerations in the case.

In actuality, he passed classes 11 and 12. In both, he performed far better than average. Additionally, he took part in very competitive entrance exams for some of the most esteemed engineering and technical universities in the nation, passing them all and receiving preliminary acceptance into at least one of them.

The Court also thought about whether it was appropriate for the board to launch any form of investigation during the petitioner’s two years of classes 11 and 12, as opposed to as soon as was reasonably practicable after admission to class 11, after the petitioner had completed those classes.

Therefore, the bench directed that the MSBSHSE announce the petitioner’s class 12 results as an interim order so that he might get admission to an engineering institution.

Senior Advocate YS Jahagirdar, together with advocates Suresh M. Sabrad, Sharvari Kanetkar, Pratik Sabrad, Amey Sawant, and Gracy S., represented the petitioner.

Advocates Kiran Gandhi, Rooshna Sayyed, and additional Government Pleader AA Purav appeared on behalf of the respondents. [2]

Written by- Himanshu Mishra, a student at St. Mother Teresa Law Degree College, Lucknow, 2nd Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.


[1] BAR AND BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-questions-rationale-maharashtra-rules-barring-non-science-stream-class-10-students-pursuing-science-later (last visited on June 11, 2023);


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *