The Delhi High Court was informed by the Consortium of National Law Universities that preparations for Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) - 2024 are ongoing, in fact, are at an advanced stage. And if any judicial order is passed now, urging it to consider including additional language options for 2024, then this might lead to administrative and operational issues, as stated in a report by PTI.
Currently, CLAT is organised in English and the 2024 exam will be held in December.
The matter is being looked into
The consortium also shared that a five-member expert committee of vice-chancellors (VCs) from National Law Universities (NLUs) has been formed to look into the matter and create a plan for the same. The committee has been asked to take a decision in their next meeting in August.
For now, the matter will be heard again on September 1.
Who filed the PIL?
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was submitted seeking to organise the law exam in regional languages. It was filed by Delhi University law student Sudhanshu Pathak stating that the exam "discriminates" and doesn't provide a "level playing field" to those who speak regional languages.
The student was represented by senior advocate Jayant Mehta and lawyers Akash Vajpai and Sakshi Raghav.
The consortium responded by stating that the committee will work on conducting the exam in additional languages.
"Respondent No 1 (consortium) is thus already actively engaging with the question of holding CLAT in scheduled language options, but the process is one that requires considerable planning and preparation, to avoid any grievances amongst the student community as to disparity in preparatory materials, failure to ensure parity in testing, and other issues which can compromise the integrity of the CLAT examination," it said.
"....given the advanced stage of preparedness already for the upcoming CLAT - 2024 examination, any judicial order compelling the introduction of additional language options this year itself, without the benefit of the studies and deliberations being undertaken internally and without allowing for any time for consequential preparation to be made by the respondent No 1 (consortium) on all the identified parameters, will cause grave prejudice to the respondent No 1," it added.
"Such changes to the examination pattern may end up being made in a knee-jerk manner which, in turn, will cause the student community — which is already preparing for the examination — grave hardship," it said.
