After Sacred-Thread Complaints, Karnataka HC Directs Uniform Exam Instructions Across State

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to formulate and implement uniform examination procedures, particularly concerning frisking and students wearing sacred threads.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition, recording the respondents’ submissions and directing that appropriate steps be taken to ensure orderly and uniform conduct of examinations across the State, including issuing appropriate directions to Commissioners and Deputy Superintendents.

It also directed

The judgment does not grant the requested declaration or order a reconduct of the CET.

01Facts

The petitioner, a registered society, filed a public-interest writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging that students had been selectively prevented from wearing a sacred thread while appearing for the Common Entrance Test (CET) held from 17 to 19 April 2025.

pp. 2–4

It sought examination guidelines on frisking and dress code, consideration of its representation, a declaration that the alleged restriction was unlawful, and a reconduct of the examination for affected students.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner also produced FIRs registered in Shimoga on 18 April 2025.

p. 5

Respondent No. 3 stated that district-level examination arrangements were supervised by Deputy Commissioners, that dress-code guidelines had been issued, and that no instruction required students to remove sacred threads.

pp. 5–6

It further submitted that steps and instructions would be issued to prevent future incidents.

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents should be directed to formulate and implement uniform examination procedures, particularly concerning frisking and students wearing sacred threads.

pp. 3–4, 7

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the other reliefs sought, including reconduct of the CET for affected students.

pp. 3–4, 7

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

p. 2

Its stated principle is that Respondent No. 3 should take appropriate steps to ensure examination arrangements are conducted in an orderly and uniform manner across the State, including issuing directions to the relevant examination officials.

p. 7

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s allegations alongside Respondent No. 3’s submission that there was no instruction requiring removal of sacred threads and that corrective instructions would be issued to prevent recurrence.

pp. 4–6

Relying on that undertaking and the need for uniform examination arrangements, the Court considered that no further relief was required, while directing appropriate steps and instructions for future examinations.

p. 7

It did not separately determine the constitutional merits of the alleged incidents or grant the requested reconduct of the CET.

p. 7