The Delhi high court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (Consortium) to announce revised results of the recently hel...
The Delhi high court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (Consortium) to announce revised results of the recently held Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025 undergraduate exam, after making changes in the award of marks for two questions.
A bench of justice Jyoti Singh directed the consortium to make corrections with regards to two questions- 14 and 100 in Set A of the exam paper, saying that the errors in the same were “demonstrably clear” and shutting a blind eye to the same would-be injustice to the candidates.
In her 29-page ruling, justice Singh further directed the consortium to extend the benefit to all the candidates who had opted for option C against question 14 in set A and ordered for excluding question 100.
“This is not a case where the courts should adopt a complete hands-off approach. The errors in Question Nos.14 and 100 are demonstrably clear and shutting a blind eye to the same would-be injustice to the Petitioner albeit this Court is conscious of the fact that it may impact the result of other candidates,” the court said in its December 20 order, released on Saturday.
The bench added, “Accordingly, it is directed that the result of the Petitioner will be revised to award marks to him for Question No.14 in accordance with the scheme of marking. Since the Court has upheld option 'C' as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Expert Committee, benefit cannot be restricted only to the Petitioner and will extend to all candidates who have opted for option 'C”. Question No.100 will be excluded as correctly advised by the Expert Committee and the result will be accordingly revised.”
The court was responding to a plea filed by a 17-year-old candidate, Aditya Singh, who had appeared in the exam, challenging the final answer key declared by CLAT and had sought constitution of an expert committee to consider the objections to the answer keys filed by him. In his petition before the high court, Singh had contended that his admission prospects were prejudiced due to the error in the answer keys. A proper adjudication, the plea went on to add, would have helped him secure a higher rank and qualify for admission in a more prestigious institution.
The consortium represented by senior advocate Sandeep Sethi asserted that Singh had no case on merits and the objections to the five questions preferred by him had no basis in law.
He had urged the court to dismiss the petition on territorial jurisdiction contending that the Consortium was a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 with a permanent Secretariat in Bengaluru in Karnataka. The senior counsel also contended that its members included various NLUs and no NLU, located within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, was its member.
Also read: Faridabad boy tops clat 2025, scores 103.5 out of 116 marks
In its 29-page ruling, the court dismissed the consortium's objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, saying that the same had no merit. “Indisputably, Petitioner has attempted the online examination within the territorial boundaries of this Court and the issues agitated before this Court concern alleged errors in the answer key pertaining to the said examination. Therefore, part of cause of action, even though miniscule has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and merely because the permanent secretariat of the Respondent is located at Bengaluru in Karnataka, it cannot be argued that this Court has no jurisdiction,” the court maintained.
Sethi had also contended that courts do not have the expertise to evaluate or assess answers to questions in the examinations and the scope of commenting on independent assessments, analysis and conclusion of experts who have evaluated the answers to the questions. Rejecting the same, justice Singh in her ruling, opined that there is no absolute proscription against a court in examining a challenge to the answer key in an examination process, despite there being an expert opinion before it.
