Kochi: The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition by CBSE students challenging the standardisation formula and subject weightage adopted in the Kerala Engineering, Architecture and Medical (KEAM) entrance examination prospectus by the state government.

The students contended that the revised standardisation formula used for preparing the rank list was discriminatory. Under the formula, 50% weightage is given to the entrance examination score and 50% to the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The students argued that the method adopted to calculate average marks across different syllabi, including CBSE, ICSE and the Kerala State syllabus, was discriminatory.

They also contended that the 5:3:2 ratio used for calculating marks in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry was not based on any proper academic study. Earlier, it was 1:1:1. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S rejected the plea.

Appearing for the state, Additional Advocate General Adv P A Muhammed Shah argued that the mark normalisation formula was introduced on the basis of a study conducted by a committee comprising the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the Director of Technical Education and the Director of SCERT. The study was undertaken following complaints from students that the system in place after changes to the entrance examination in 2024 had resulted in discrimination.

The state contended that the revised formula was intended to eliminate disparities rather than create them. The present standardisation procedure adopted in the prospectus for 2026 is designed to be impartial and ensures that no specific education board receives any special preference or advantage, argued Adv Shah. In the 2026 process, the highest mark obtained in each respective board was 100%, thereby ensuring that no student from any board receives any undue advantage, and it inherently accounts for the varying levels of examination difficulty across different Boards.

The students had approached the Division Bench challenging a June 8 judgment by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the High Court, which upheld the revised methodology.