Delhi High Court To Hear PIL Seeking Calculators For CBSE Class XII Board Exams

A group of Delhi parents has moved the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to allow Class XII students to use basic, non-programmable calculators in board examinations, pointing out that the Board’s own Curriculum Committee approved such a move nearly two years ago but never put it into practice. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday.

The petition has been filed by Vishal Dua, a Pitampura resident whose son is a Class XII student at a CBSE-affiliated school, for himself and as the authorised attorney of ten other parents. The Union of India, CBSE, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and PARAKH (National Assessment Centre) are the respondents.

According to the plea, CBSE does not allow even a simple calculator in Class XII papers, including Mathematics and Accountancy, which involve heavy calculation. Students must do every addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and percentage by hand within a fixed time. “In these subjects, a large part of the examination time gets used up simply in doing calculations, leaving very little time for the student to actually show whether he or she has understood the subject,” the petition states.

The plea stresses that this is not a fresh demand. It relies on the minutes of CBSE’s 70th Curriculum Committee meeting held on November 25 and 26, 2024, where the committee considered, under Item 4.08, permitting basic, non-programmable calculators in the Class XII Accountancy examination. As quoted in the petition, the minutes record that the decision “aims to reduce the cognitive load of lengthy calculations, allowing students to focus on critical analysis and case studies,” and that members called it a “long-overdue initiative.” The committee approved the agenda, and the recommendation was placed before CBSE’s Governing Body at its 140th meeting on December 26, 2024.

Nothing has followed, the petitioners claim. They say the proposal has neither been notified nor implemented, and that they found no information on its status in the public domain. “CBSE has simply not bothered to notify or implement a decision that its own Committee has already taken, for nearly two years now,” the petition says.

A representation dated August 17, 2026, sent by speed post and email, sought a reasoned reply within four weeks. It asked for an update on the Accountancy proposal, an expert committee on extending the facility to Mathematics, and restoration of the calculator facility for children with disabilities. The petition states that no reply has come from any respondent.

Legally, the petitioners invoke Article 14, arguing that unexplained inaction on a decision already approved by the Board’s own expert body amounts to arbitrary State action. They cite Jigya Yadav v. CBSE to argue that CBSE’s bye-laws are open to judicial review, and Vikash Kumar v. UPSC on reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

The petition also leans on national policy. It points to Paragraph 4.34 of the National Education Policy, 2020, which seeks to move assessment away from rote memorisation, and to the National Curriculum Framework, 2023. On practice elsewhere, it says CISCE permitted a specific calculator model for Class XII in 2021, while the International Baccalaureate, Cambridge IGCSE, UK GCSE boards and the College Board, which conducts the SAT and ACT, allow basic calculators in a regulated manner.

On students with disabilities, the plea says CBSE circulars of January 20 and February 11, 2020, permitted basic calculators for Children With Special Needs in Class XII. Today, it says, the relief is limited to students certified with dyscalculia, for whom the examination centre provides a calculator.

The petitioners seek three directions. First, that CBSE, in consultation with the Centre, NCERT and PARAKH, conclude, notify and implement the Accountancy proposal within eight weeks. Second, that a time-bound expert committee be constituted to examine extending the facility to Mathematics. Third, that the dyscalculia facility be extended to all other categories of students with disabilities who may need it.

The petition clarifies that it does not seek any syllabus change or lowering of difficulty. The aim, it says, is “so that students can show what they actually understand rather than how fast they can calculate by hand.”

The petition has been filed through NMLO Legal LLP, with Advocate Nitin Mangla signing it. The vakalatnama also names Advocates Nishchay Kapoor, Nitish Garg, Ankit Dhawan, Manisha Singh and Kavinder Singh.

Case Title: Vishal Dua & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.