1. The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026, which was one filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Rt.)No.1615/2025/H.Edn. dated 26.12.2025 and the consequent amendments made in Ext.P9 prospectus of KEAM-2026 regarding the change in the subject weightage and standardisation formula; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to maintain 1:1:1 ratio for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, and the original standardisation formula, as approved by the 2011 Expert Committee, for KEAM-2026 admissions; and a declaration that any change to the standardisation formula or subject weightage for professional entrance examinations must be based on the recommendations of an independent high-level Expert Committee of Statisticians and Academicians, and not merely on an internal administrative proceedings.

2. The appellants-petitioners, who are class XII students belonging to the CBSE stream, who are aspiring admission to engineering courses in the State of Kerala during the academic year 2026-27, are aggrieved by the subject weightage and standardisation formula in Ext.P9 prospectus for KEAM-2026, which was introduced in the prospectus based on Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the relevant extract of the prospectus for admission to professional degree courses-2012 published by the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, which was approved by the 1st respondent State vide G.O.(Ms.)No.355/2011/H.Edn. dated 28.12.2011. Ext.P2 is the relevant extract of the prospectus for KEAM-2025, which was approved vide G.O.(Ms.)No.97/2025/ H.Edn. dated 19.02.2025. Ext.P3 is a copy of G.O.(Ms.)No. 470/2025/H.Edn. dated 01.07.2025, whereby the Government amended the standardisation/normalisation formula in Ext.P2 prospectus for KEAM-2025. The existing conditions of the said prospectus and the amendment made thereto are shown in a tabular form in the Annexure to Ext.P3 Government order. The document marked as Ext.P4 is the report dated 02.06.2025 of the Standardisation of Review Committee, submitted before the State Government, which has been referred to in Ext.P3 Government order.

3. The standardisation formula introduced by Ext.P3 Government order dated 01.07.2025 was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C)Nos.24976, 24951, 25180 and 24767 of 2025. Those writ petitions were disposed of by the judgment dated 09.07.2025, with the observations and directions contained therein. The learned Single Judge found that after the conduct of the entrance examination, the Government is denuded of its power, even under Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus for KEAM-2025, to change the prospectus. The learned Single Judge set aside the change in the said prospectus and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, was directed to publish the rank list in accordance with the prospectus, which was published on 19.02.2025.

4. Challenging the common judgment dated 09.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025 and connected matters, the State and the official respondents filed W.A.Nos.1699, 1700, 1701 and 1702 of 2025. By the judgment dated 10.07.2025 of a Division Bench in which both of us are parties, those writ appeals were dismissed, whereby interference was declined on the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025 and connected matters.

5. The parents of the appellants-petitioners submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 12.11.2025 before the Minister for Higher Education, Kerala, apprehending the introduction of a new standardisation formula in the prospectus for KEAM-2026, as done in the case of Ext.P2 prospectus for KEAM-2025. On receipt of Ext.P5 representation, the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, sent Ext.P6 reply dated 04.12.2025, whereby they were informed that the Commissioner has already sought clarifications from the Government on the standardisation formula in the prospectus.

6. By Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025, which was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026, the Government amended Clause 1.4(a) of the prospectus for KEAM, amending the subject weightage for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry from 1:1:1 to 5:3:2 and also the standardisation formula in Clause 9.7.4(b). The amendments made to Clauses 1.4(a) and 9.7.4(b) of the prospectus were based on the recommendations made by the Internal Committee headed by the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, in Ext.P8 minutes dated 13.12.2025. In addition to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the Director of Technical Education, Kerala and the Director of State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Kerala, were also part of that Internal Committee. Based on Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025, the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations published Ext.P9 prospectus for KEAM-2026, which was approved by the 1st respondent State vide G.O.(Ms.)No.03/2026/H.Edn. dated 01.01.2026. Clause 1.4(a) of Ext.P9 prospectus prescribes 5:3:2 as the subject weightage for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, and Clause 9.7.4(b) prescribes the new standardisation formula. The document marked as Ext.P10 is an illustration by the petitioners, detailing a comparative analysis in order to show disparity between the erstwhile standardisation formula and the new standardisation formula introduced vide Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025.

7. In W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026, the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations filed a counter affidavit dated 21.02.2026, opposing the reliefs sought for.

8. The learned Single Judge heard W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026 along with a connected matter, i.e., W.P.(C)No.1480 of 2026, filed by another set of CBSE students. By the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions, holding that there is no merit in the challenge raised by the petitioners against Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025 and Clauses 1.4(a) and 9.7.4(b) of Ext.P9 prospectus for KEAM-2026.

9. On 15.06.2026, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought an adjournment to discuss the matter with the learned Advocate General. On 18.06.2026, we heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-the State and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners contended that the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026 is opposed to law and facts of the case. The learned Single Judge has not properly dealt with the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners while holding that the introduction of a new standardisation formula in Clause 9.7.4(b) of Ext.P9 prospectus of KEAM-2026 and the change in the subject weightage in Clause 1.4(a) of that prospectus falls exclusively within the domain of administrative policy and is thus insulated from judicial scrutiny. The said policy, which is demonstrably arbitrary, unscientific and discriminatory is open to judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the contention raised by the petitioners that while introducing a new standardisation formula and subject weightage the 1st respondent State completely bypassed the findings of an Expert Committee, i.e., the Standardisation Review Committee, in Ext.P4 report dated 02.06.2025. For introducing the new standardisation formula and subject weightage, the 1st respondent State relied on Ext.P8 minutes of the Internal Committee, which is not an Expert Committee consisting of Statisticians and Academicians. The standardisation formula in Clause 9.7.4(b) and the subject weightage in Clause 1.4(a) create a false equivalence by assuming that a top score of 100% in an examination board is identical in difficulty, syllabus, depth and grading strictness to a top scorer in another examination board. By failing to normalise the variations in mass marking tendencies in the State Examination Board and CBSE/ICSC, the new standardisation formula treats unequals as equals, resulting in cross-board discrimination of meritorious candidates. The principles laid down in the decision of the Madras High Court in Minor S. Aswin Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2007 (NOC) 1812 (Mad.)] have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. The contentions raised by the petitioners that while issuing Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025 and by making consequential amendments in Ext.P9 prospectus of KEAM-2026, the 1st respondent State acted with evident mala fides, in order to confer an unlawful and undue advantage upon the students of State syllabus, to the detriment of others, was not properly considered by the learned Single Judge, while declining the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026. The illustration in Ext.P10, detailing a comparative analysis to show disparity between the erstwhile standardisation formula and the new standardisation formula introduced vide Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025, was also not properly considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the said judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants interference in this intra-court appeal.

11. The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-the State and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations contended that the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026 is one rendered after taking note of the legal and factual issues of the case. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference in this intra-court appeal. The learned Additional Advocate General made specific reference to the comparative chart showing the average difference of the marks of CBSE, State syllabus and ICSE students for the years 2015 to 2025, before and after standardisation of their marks, as contained in internal pages 14 and 15 of Ext.P8 minutes of the Internal Committee and also another comparative chart showing the difference of marks of students who scored higher marks in the CBSE, State syllabus and ICSE examinations, before and after standardisation of their marks, as contained in internal pages 15 and 16 of the said minutes. The learned Additional Advocate General has also pointed out the four issues in which the Internal Committee had detailed discussions, as contained in internal pages 18 to 34 of Ext.P8 minutes, before recording its decisions and directions, as contained in internal pages 34 to 40 of the said minutes. The learned Additional Advocate General would also point out that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is one rendered after taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] that in academic matters involving technical expertise, the Court should not ordinarily interfere. In such matters, the court should adopt a practical and contextual approach. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Minor S. Aswin Kumar [AIR 2007 (NOC) 1812 (Mad)]. At any rate, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for declining the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026, vide the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026.

12. The subject weightage in Clause 1.4(a) of Ext.P9 prospectus of KEAM-2026, introduced vide Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025, reads thus;

                  “Clause 1.4(a):- Admission to Engineering courses shall be regulated on the basis of merit as assessed by giving equal weightage of 50:50 to the normalized score obtained in the Entrance Examination for Engineering and the grade/marks obtained in the final year of the qualifying examination for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry put together in the ratio 5:3:2, after effecting the normalization procedure as described in Clause 9.7.4(b), for computing the Index mark out of 600. In case, the candidate has not studied Chemistry, the marks obtained in Computer Science shall be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied Chemistry and Computer Science, the marks obtained in Biotechnology shall be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied Chemistry, Computer Science and Biotechnology, the marks obtained in Biology shall be considered. The marks as shown in the mark list obtained from the Board of Examination of the respective Higher Secondary Board shall be considered for academic eligibility.”

13. The standardisation formula in Clause 9.7.4(b) of Ext.P9 prospectus of KEAM-2026, introduced vide Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025, reads thus;

                  “Clause 9.7.4(b)(i) Equal weightage of 50:50 shall be given to the normalized score obtained in the Entrance Examination for Engineering as described in Clause 9.4.4 (i) and the grade/marks obtained in the final year of the qualifying examination for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry put together, in the ratio 5:3:2, after effecting the normalization procedure as described in Clause 9.7.4(b)(iii). In case the candidate has not studied Chemistry, the marks obtained in Computer Science shall be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied Chemistry and Computer Science, the marks obtained in Biotechnology shall be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied Chemistry, Computer Science and Biotechnology, the marks obtained in Biology shall be considered.

                  (ii) The final year marks of the qualifying examination of each subject Mathematics, Chemistry/Computer Physics and Science/Biotechnology/Biology, after effecting the normalization in each subject, shall be put together in the ratio 5:3:2 (Mathematics: 150, Physics: 90, Chemistry: 60) so that the combined marks of the three subjects is out of 300.

                  (iii) The marks obtained by the students in the relevant subjects in the qualifying examinations conducted by the various Boards or Authorities shall be normalised using the following formula.

                  The normalized mark YB of a candidate of a particular board, B, is:

                  YB= XjB HB j ×100

                  HjB

                  Where HjB denotes the maximum of the marks secured by the students of a board (B) in a particular year (j) for a particular subject, and XjB denotes the mark secured by a candidate of the board (B), for that subject in that year (j). Qualifying examinations of different years of the same board will be treated as different from each other.”

14. In W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026, the petitioners’ case was that the standardisation formula was introduced because the syllabus, the standard of questions and the evaluation methods of CBSE and ICSE are significantly different from the State syllabus. The CBSE and ICSE curricula are often more advanced, with indirect questions designed to test the students' holistic understanding. The evaluation is strict and confined to exact answers. On the other hand, the State syllabus students have the benefit of a different evaluation pattern. The 2011 standardisation formula was designed specifically to alleviate these disparities with mathematical accuracy. In the year 2025, the 1st respondent State issued Ext.P3 order dated 01.07.2025, in complete derogation of the recommendations in Ext.P4 report dated 02.06.2025 of an Expert Committee, i.e., the Standardisation Review Committee. By unilaterally bypassing the findings of that Expert Committee in Ext.P4 report, the respondents have acted with evident mala fides, to confer unlawful and undue advantage upon the students of the State syllabus, to the detriment of others.

15. The illustration given by the petitioners in Ext.P10, detailing a comparative analysis to show disparity between the erstwhile standardisation formula and the new standardisation formula introduced vide Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025, is as follows;

                

                 

16. On the other hand, the specific contention taken by the 1st respondent State and the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, is with reference to the comparative chart showing the average difference of the marks of CBSE, State syllabus and ICSE students for the years 2015 to 2025, before and after standardisation of their marks, as contained in internal pages 14 and 15 of Ext.P8 minutes of the Internal Committee, and also another comparative chart showing the difference of marks of students who scored higher marks in the CBSE, State syllabus and ICSE examinations, before and after standardisation of their marks, as contained in internal pages 15 and 16 of the said minutes. The relevant paragraphs of Ext.P8 minutes of the Internal Committee at internal pages 14 to 16 of that minutes, read thus;

                

                 

                  # The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations explained the comparison between the marks before and after standardization for students from the major boards during the academic years from 2015 to 2025. The said comparison, based on the average difference, is added in a tabular format below:

                 

                  ## The difference between the marks before and after equalization for students from major boards who secured high marks in the HSE, CBSE, and ISC qualifying examinations is added below:

                  Difference Between Marks Before and After Standardization

17. As noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the 1st respondent State conducts entrance examinations every year, for the engineering as well as the medical streams. Such a process commenced in the early 1980’s. Initially, in the State, admission to the professional courses was based on the marks secured by the student in the qualifying examination, which was pre-degree/XII standard. Subsequently, after the system of entrance examination was introduced, the admissions were based on the marks secured by a candidate at the entrance examination alone. Over the years, the State felt it essential to adopt a system in which 50% marks, each from the qualifying examination and the entrance score, were calculated, to identify the successful candidate. However, since the method of valuation of the qualifying examinations in the different Boards was radically different, the Government introduced, in the year 2012, a system of standardisation. The said system also raised concerns and complaints. Hence, a Committee was appointed to review the then existing standardization method. By Ext.P4 report dated 02.06.2025, the said Committee opined that introducing a new formula or making any modification to the existing scheme would be possible only after a thorough and detailed study, and since it needed more time, it was felt that implementing a new formula was not feasible for that year. However, it was suggested to revise the existing weightage ratio between normalised marks at the entrance examination and standardised marks of the qualifying examination from 50:50 to 60:40. Contrary to the above recommendation, the State introduced a system by retaining the 50:50 ratio but used a formula of 5:3:2 for the subjects Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, respectively, scored at the qualifying examination. Ext.P2 prospectus for the year 2025 was amended as per Ext.P3 order dated 01.07.2025. However, this Court interfered with the change brought out after issuing the prospectus, after noting that the ‘rules of the game cannot be changed after the game starts’. Subsequently, the State, by an order dated 06.12.2025, constituted an Internal Committee, which, after deliberations, submitted Ext.P8 recommendations to adopt the normalisation formula approved and followed in Tamil Nadu, based on a ratio of 5:3:2 of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. It was also recommended that the changes be included at the time the prospectus itself is published. The State, thereafter, by Ext.P7 order dated 26.12.2025, concluded that the existing practice resulted in loss of marks for the students and hence decided to approve the recommendations of the Internal Committee. The above approved changes were incorporated into Ext.P9 prospectus for KEAM-2026, and applications were invited based on the said prospectus.

18. In the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026, the learned Single Judge noticed that the Internal Committee, in Ext.P8 minutes dated 13.12.2025, identified that the then existing standardisation formula and the subject weightage led to significant reduction in the final scores of the students and also that there were widespread complaints that the students were being subjected to disadvantageous positions. The Internal Committee also identified that students from certain Boards were being subjected to reduced marks under the prevailing system of standardisation, resulting in disadvantages for students from certain Boards. Thus, the Internal Committee recommended to discontinue the prevailing standardisation methodology and to adopt in its place a simpler and more transparent process of normalisation of marks. The Internal Committee, after detailed discussion, found it fit to adopt the normalisation process implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu, on being satisfied that it is the most appropriate process in the circumstances in the State of Kerala. Accordingly, the Internal Committee suggested adopting the normalisation process by which the highest marks obtained in each Board is treated as 100%, thereby ensuring that no student from any particular Board receives an undue advantage, which inherently accounts for the varying levels of difficulty in the examinations across different Boards. The Internal Committee found that, under the system, the students receive either their actual marks or adjusted scores that increase in proportion to the difficulty of their specific Board's examination, and also ensures that students from any Board are not subjected to a downward revision of their marks. The aforesaid formula suggested by the Internal Committee was accepted and approved by the 1st respondent State.

19. In paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026, the learned Single Judge noted that, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly agreed with the observation of the Court that in the present system of normalisation, there cannot be any downward revision of marks. As observed by the learned Single Judge, of course, there could be circumstances where there is no corresponding increase in the marks of the students of a particular Board. Nevertheless, that depends upon the highest marks obtained in each Board.

20. As discernible from Ext.P8 minutes, the Internal Committee had detailed discussions on four issues, as contained in internal pages 18 to 34 of the said minutes, before recording its decisions and directions, as contained in internal pages 34 to 40 of the minutes. The decisions and directives of the Internal Committee in Ext.P8 minutes [English translation] read thus;

                  ‘Decisions and Directives

                  Starting from the year 2024, entrance examinations including those for Engineering and Pharmacy are being conducted as Computer Based Tests. This necessitates the exams to be conducted over multiple days in various sessions. Since “different question papers” are utilised for each session, slight variations may occur in the structure of the questions. The normalisation of Engineering scores is done to ensure that no student faces an “unfair advantage or loss” due to these variations.

                  * The standardisation policy and entrance score normalisation process currently used in engineering entrance examinations cannot be justified, as they result in a loss of marks for students. The committee members pointed out that the syllabus of CBSE, State Boards, and other educational boards are entirely designed based on NCERT textbooks. Therefore, differences in syllabus across boards are generally not found, and there are no significant variations in the academic preparation of the students. Such standardization procedures create unnecessary discrepancies in marks among students who have studied a similar syllabus, which is a violation of educational justice and the principle of equality. Consequently, the committee suggested that it is essential to review the existing standardisation methods and introduce newer, fairer practices to protect the interests of students and maintain the credibility of the examination system.

                  * The committee also opined that a normalisation formula similar to the one followed by Tamil Nadu, which has been approved by the State Cabinet, could be adopted. Accordingly, the relative weightage of subjects could be incorporated in a 5:3:2 ratio for Mathematics : Physics : Chemistry.

                  * The committee decided to amend Clause 1.4 (a) and Clause 9.7.4(b) of the KEAM Prospectus as follows:

                  Clause 1.4(a) xxx xxx xxx

                  Clause 9.7.4(b) xxx xxx xxx

                  (already extracted hereinbefore at paragraphs 12 and 13, pages 12 to 14)

                  The committee unanimously decided that the amendment regarding this matter should be presented at the 2026 KEAM Prospectus Revamp Committee meeting on 15.12.2025. Furthermore, this draft outline must be presented before the members of the Prospectus Revamp Committee. Upon approval by the Revamp Committee, the draft prospectus and the committee's report can be submitted to the Government.

                  It is also decided that the changes should be incorporated into the prospectus itself as soon as government approval is obtained. If students are made aware of these changes at the time of inviting applications for the examination itself, they can prepare accordingly. Publishing the rules and regulations prior to the competition will ensure equality, equity, and prevent any confusion.”

21. As already noticed hereinbefore, the Internal Committee consists of the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the Director for Technical Education, Kerala and the Director of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Kerala. A reading of Ext.P8 minutes would show that decisions and directions of the Internal Committee, as contained in internal pages 34 to 40 of the said minutes, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 20, are supported by reasons. Though it was alleged in W.P.(C)No. 4399 of 2026 that, by unilaterally bypassing the findings of that Expert Committee in Ext.P4 report, the respondents have acted with evident mala fides, to confer unlawful and undue advantage upon the students of the State syllabus, to the detriment of others,

the said allegation of mala fides is neither supported by any specific pleadings in that writ petition nor it can be inferred from the proof of facts, which are part of the pleadings in that writ petition.

22. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 222] the Apex Court held that mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient to prove mala fides. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case.

23. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [(1986) 4 SCC 566] the Apex Court reiterated the requirements of specific pleadings regarding mala fides, on the basis of which the court can arrive at its conclusion. In the said decision, the Apex Court held in categorical terms that mere use of words such as ‘mala fide’, ‘corruption’ and ‘corrupt practice’ is not enough. It is necessary to give full particulars of such allegations and to set out the material facts specifying the particular person against whom such allegations are made.

24. In paragraphs 12 to 14 of the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the contention of the petitioners that the Internal Committee comprised of non-experts, which had recommended in Ext.P8 minutes contrary to the views of the Standardisation Review Committee in Ext.P4 report, without any detailed study, and also the contention raised by the respondents, placing reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Minor S. Aswin Kumar [AIR 2007 (NOC) 1812 (Mad)]. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge found that the petitioners have not been able to prove any arbitrariness or unfairness in the adoption of the said scheme in the State of Kerala, to the extent of normalising the marks obtained at the qualifying examinations of different Boards. Paragraphs 12 to 14 of the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026 read thus;

                  ‘12. The contention that the Internal Committee, comprised of non-experts, had recommended contrary to the views of the Review Committee constituted earlier, and without any detailed study, recommended the present system of normalisation, though appeared to be impressive, on a proper analysis, has to be discarded as not legally tenable. The system of normalisation recommended by the Internal Committee is not a new system. It has been in vogue in the State of Tamil Nadu for several years without any complaint. As noted earlier, the said system does not reveal any reduction in marks for any student from any Board. In the absence of any explicit arbitrariness or prejudice being shown to have been caused to any student due to the method of normalisation adopted by the Prospectus 2026, this Court ought to restrain itself from interfering with such a process.

                  13. The system was introduced in Tamil Nadu in the year 2007 after abolishing the Common Entrance Examination to Professional Colleges. The challenge to the introduction of the system of normalisation was repelled by the High Court of Madras. While considering the challenge to the concept of normalization, the High Court of Madras had, in Minor S. Aswin Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2007 (2) CTC 677], observed as follows:

                  “48. Now, the State Government framed a scheme viz., “Normalisation method” to achieve uniform evaluation of the merit of students who have passed the qualifying examination. It is the State policy to frame a scheme to achieve uniform evaluation of the merits of the students who have passed in the qualifying examination. Usually, the Court has no power to interfere with the policy decision of the Government unless it is arbitrary and ultra vires of the Constitution and the same was not in violation of Article 14(2) of the Constitution. There is nothing to state that the new scheme framed by the State Government to achieve the common evaluation of the merits of the students who have passed the qualifying examination is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14(2) of the Constitution.

                  49. The processing should be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The present scheme satisfies the above three conditions.”

                  14. Thus, the new scheme implemented in Tamil Nadu and found judicial acceptance in the judgment in Minor S. Aswin Kumar (supra) has been adopted in Kerala to the extent of normalising the marks obtained at the qualifying examination of the different Boards. The petitioners have not been able to prove any arbitrariness or unfairness in the said system warranting an interference by this Court.’

25. In paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, as regards the contention based on absence of experts in the Internal Committee, the learned Single Judge noticed that the said Committee consisted of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the Director for Technical Education and the Director of the State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT). The learned Single Judge observed that, the above referred persons are well versed with entrance examinations and the field of education. Thus, they cannot be held to be incompetent persons to review the system of standardisation of marks, etc., that was in existence. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, rejected the contention of the petitioners based on lack of experts in the Internal Committee. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in this regard cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, warranting interference in an intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

26. In University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491], in the facts of the case at hand, the Apex Court noticed that, the High Court has criticized the report made by the Board of Appointments nominated by the University and observed that the circumstances disclosed by the report made it difficult for the High Court to treat the recommendations made by the experts with the respect that generally deserve. In that context, the Apex Court observed that the Board of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following such recommendations are challenged before the courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. On facts, the Apex Court noticed that there was no allegation about mala fides against the experts, who constituted the Board of Appointments.

27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27], the Apex Court held that in academic matters involving technical expertise, courts should not ordinarily interfere. Courts should adopt a practical and contextual approach in such matters.

28. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726], the Apex Court held that the interference of courts in academic/educational matters is not proper, except where interpretation of a statutory provision or of the law is involved.

29. In Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh [(2010) 8 SCC 372], the Apex Court held that the courts have a very limited role, particularly, when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.

30. In University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde [(2013) 10 SCC 519], the Apex Court held that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notifications issued, the court shall keep their hands off, since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. The courts shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts, who are more familiar with the problems they face, than the courts generally are.

31. In Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 502], the Apex Court summarized certain tests, whether the courts should or not interfere in the policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments. Those tests are; (i) if the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional; (ii) the change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention; (iii) the policy can be faulted on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, etc.; (iv) if the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions; (v) it is dehors the provisions of the Act or legislations; (vi) if the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation.

32. In Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur v. Soutrik Sarangi [(2021) 17 SCC 79], the Apex Court held that in matters such as devising admission criteria or other issues in academic institutions, the scrutiny in judicial review has to be careful and circumspect as the Courts are neither equipped nor have academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education.

33. In All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra [(2025) 6 SCC 605], the Apex Court held that, normally, the courts should not interfere with the decisions taken by expert statutory bodies regarding academic matters; may it relate to qualification for admission of students or qualification required by teachers for appointment, salary, promotion, entitlement to a higher pay scale, etc. However, this does not mean that the courts are deprived of their powers of judicial review. It only means that the courts must be slow in interfering with the opinion of experts in regard to academic standards and the power of judicial review should only be exercised in cases where prescribed qualification or condition is against the law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principles of law.

34. In paragraphs 15 to 19 of the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the limitations on interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on academic matters. The wisdom of the Government in identifying and evolving methodologies for examination and the correctness of policies adopted by it are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. Such policies can be interfered with only if it is demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution of India or is totally absurd that no reasonable or prudent person could have adopted it. After detailed discussion of the law on the point, the learned Single Judge found that, in the case at hand, there is no dispute regarding the power of the 1st respondent State to change the scheme and system of examination and evaluation. Hence, the challenge against the method of normalisation introduced in the prospectus for KEAM-2026 is not legally tenable. Paragraphs 15 to 20 of the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2026 read thus;

                  “15. Moreover, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of the statutory provisions or that of the Constitution of India, the Courts ought to keep its hand off. Such matters that fall in the realm of the domain of experts, ought not be treaded upon, as this Court does not possess such an expertise. Reference to the decisions in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] and University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde [(2013) 10 SCC 519] are relevant in this context.

                  16. Similarly, introduction of the new scheme of normalization of marks is a matter of policy. Minor errors can also arise while introducing a new scheme. At times, the errors would become visible or identifiable only after it is put to test. However, merely because there can be minor errors in a system of examination and evaluation introduced by the Government, the court ought not to sit in judgment over the wisdom of such a scheme or system unless serious prejudice is expressly shown to exist in the new scheme or method. Though absolute equality is the ideal situation, that may not be possible to be achieved, especially when there are different Boards following different curricula.

                  17. It needs no elaborate discussion that, in academic matters, judicial review should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances. As the Court is not an expert, it should be loath to interfere with the decisions of the academic bodies, unless there is ex facie arbitrariness or malafides involved. Similarly, in matters of policy also, the court should be reluctant to interfere, unless the policy is patently absurd or malafide. The court ought not to substitute or supplant its judgment or views for that of the body entrusted with the power to take decisions on academic matters, especially those relating to the method of evaluation of answer sheets. As long as a body entrusted with the power to identify a methodology for conduct and evaluation of an examination, acts within the sphere of its authority, without arbitrariness or malafides or other extrinsic reasons, the court should always refrain from interfering, lest the whole process gets jeopardised.

                  18. In this context, it is also appropriate to observe that the wisdom of the Government in identifying and evolving methodologies for examination, and the correctness of policies adopted by it are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. Such policies can be interfered with only if it is demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution of India or is totally absurd that no reasonable or prudent person could have adopted it.

                  19. In Maharashtra S.B.O.S. and H.S. Education and Another v. Paritosh [(1984) 4 SCC 27], it has been held that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It was also observed in the said decision that it may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Court went on to hold that the legislature and a delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless it is wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or that it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of the Constitution.

                  20. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the power of the Government to change the scheme and system of examination and evaluation. Hence, the challenge against the method of normalization introduced through the Prospectus 2026, is not legally tenable.”

35. As already noticed by the learned Single Judge, the wisdom of the Government in identifying and evolving methodologies for examination and the correctness of policies adopted by it are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. Such policies can be interfered with only if it is demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution of India or is totally absurd that no reasonable or prudent person could have adopted it. Since the petitioners could not make out any such case, the learned Single Judge rightly declined interference in the policy of the 1st respondent State in amending Clauses 1.4(a) and 9.7.4(b) of the prospectus for KEAM, vide Ext.P7 Government order dated 26.12.2025. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, conclusion is irresistible that, no interference is warranted on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.06.2026 in W.P.(C)No.4399 of 2026, whereby that writ petition was dismissed, declining the reliefs sought for.

In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.