3 min readNew DelhiApr 18, 2026 06:02 PM IST
Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Shashil G Namoshi has formally raised objections to a draft amendment issued on April 10, 2026, under the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board Regulations, 1966, flagging both legal and administrative concerns.
In a representation addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Karnataka, Namoshi urged the state to withdraw the proposal.
Read More | Karnataka slashes SSLC total marks to 525; 3rd language scores will no longer count from this year
In his submission, the MLC argued that the proposed shift from marks to a grading system for the third language is in violation of directions issued by the Karnataka High Court. He warned that any deviation from the court’s order could amount to willful disobedience, potentially attracting contempt proceedings.
A key concern highlighted in the letter is the retrospective implementation of the amendment for the academic year 2025-26, which has already concluded. Namoshi stated that such a move is legally impermissible and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as well as established principles of natural justice. He further noted that altering the mode of evaluation after the completion of the academic cycle undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation and could severely prejudice students.
The MLC also questioned the rationale behind treating the third language as a graded, non-essential subject, calling the move arbitrary and lacking a sound academic basis. He cautioned that such a change could lead to unequal academic treatment and render the proposal unconstitutional.
Read More | Karnataka Governor asks govt to relook grading system for third language in SSLC
Story continues below this ad
Additionally, the representation emphasised that the choice of language should remain with students and parents, and warned against any dilution or removal of the third language. It also referenced constitutional bench observations on language policy, asserting that the government must ensure equal opportunity for students to learn their mother tongue, alongside Kannada and English.
Beyond legal objections, Namoshi raised procedural concerns, stating that the draft notification provides inadequate time for stakeholders to submit objections and lacks proper consultation. He added that frequent policy changes without academic consistency could harm the credibility of the State Board and negatively impact students’ futures.
In his letter, the MLC has demanded the immediate withdrawal of the draft amendment, a halt to any retrospective implementation, and that the proposal be kept in abeyance. He also called on the government to duly consider all objections received – both via official email and physical submissions – before proceeding further, in compliance with statutory requirements.
