The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), regarded as the gateway to India’s prestigious National Law Universities (NLUs), has found itself at the centre of controversy.
For both undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) aspirants, the CLAT 2025 exam, conducted on December 1, has triggered outrage over alleged errors in the question paper, discrepancies in the provisional answer key, and procedural lapses.
Students, coaching institutes, and legal experts are raising critical questions about the credibility of the exam and the accountability of its conducting body, the Consortium of National Law Universities.
From incorrect options in logical reasoning sets to ambiguous General Knowledge (GK) passages and math questions with allegedly outright calculation errors, CLAT 2025 has come under fire for repeated lapses in quality control.
While the UG paper was described by many as “too easy,” undermining the hard work of students who had prepared extensively, the PG exam had its share of procedural inconsistencies and substantive flaws, which prompted two candidates to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court, as detailed by LiveLaw in a report published today, December 5.
For UG aspirants like Chirag Bagri, 17, who spent over a year preparing, the paper’s simplicity was a bitter disappointment. “The gap between students who prepared and those who didn’t was negligible,” he claims, adding that “Sections like legal reasoning and GK, which traditionally require intensive preparation, felt more like reading comprehension exercises. It was a waste of effort.”
A major point of contention among all UG aspirants was the logical reasoning section, which included a set of six analytical reasoning questions, at least four of which lacked the correct answer in the options, leading to wasted time and heightened stress for candidates.
Another egregious error was found in a question that mentioned 5,80,000 homeless people, while all answer options were in millions.
“Such errors not only waste time but also erode trust in the paper,” Chirag added, before highlighting the financial burden imposed by the objection fees.
The consortium’s policy of charging Rs 1,000 per objection has been widely criticised. In a notification dated December 2, the consortium specified that “Objection(s) without the prescribed fee shall not be entertained.”
“I registered three objections,” Chirag recalls. “Each objection costs Rs 1,000, so my friend and I each spent Rs 3,000 to raise our concerns, challenging six of the questions. This adds up to a significant expense, discouraging many from voicing legitimate issues.”
“It’s a deterrent,” says a CLAT PG aspirant, adding, “After paying Rs 4,000 for registration, expecting students to pay thousands more just to contest errors is unwarranted.”
Officials from coaching institutes echo this sentiment. “The objection fee is not in line with student welfare,” says a senior official from CLAT Possible, a leading coaching institute based out of Lucknow, dedicated to preparing students for the CLAT and other law entrance exams.
For PG candidates, the frustration has escalated to legal action.
Two aspirants, Anam Khan and Ayush Agarwal, have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the provisional answer key and procedural lapses, and highlighting how they did not receive their question bank and OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) booklets on time, which delayed the process of filling OMR details, eating into the two hours allotted for solving the paper
Represented by a team of advocates, the petitioners argue that their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21A have been violated. They are seeking a stay on the publication of results and admissions until the issues are addressed.
Moreover, the consortium allegedly issued a clarification just a day before the exam, prohibiting candidates from marking answers directly on the question paper while allowing them to underline important points in the questions.
This led to confusion among some candidates. In one instance, a student was reportedly pulled aside and reprimanded for approximately 10 minutes for marking answers on the question paper, a common practice in competitive exams.
While she was apparently allowed to continue and finish the exam, she was allegedly not given any extra time to do so.
Coaching institutes, which invest significant resources in preparing students, are also grappling with the repercussions of this year’s exam’s flaws.
Dr Surabhi Modi Sahai, Managing Director (MD) & Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Possible Education (CLAT Possible), raises concerns about the disconnect between the consortium’s sample papers and the actual exam.
“It feels like the sample papers are created by one body and the actual exam by another, with no communication between them. This mismatch not only affects students’ preparation but also lowers the quality of candidates entering law schools,” she says.
Saiyed Anzer Abbas, Co-founder of CLATapult Education, a Kolkata-based coaching institute founded by alumni of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), notes that while the UG paper was easier than expected, this simplicity undermines students’ preparation.
“The paper was easier than expected. We set our mocks to be tougher than every other place just to be on the safe side, to train our kids’ minds to get accustomed to a difficult paper,” he states.
The repeated controversies have led to growing calls for systemic reform. While a retest is the most equitable solution, many, including Dr Sahai, acknowledge its logistical challenges.
“Retests are rare and burdensome, but if the consortium cannot deliver an error-free paper, they should consider outsourcing to professional testing bodies like those behind the LNAT (Law National Aptitude Test) or LSAT (Law School Admission Test),” she suggests, before adding, “These organisations have the expertise to create standardised, error-free exams, ensuring accountability and fairness.”
Abbas, too, believes that a retest is not the most ideal solution, calling it an 'impractical' idea.
“The most legit way forward is to deduct the same number of marks from the total marks, like what they did last year, when they brought down the number to 118 from 120,” he opines, referring to the CLAT 2024 UG paper, where two disputed questions were withdrawn based on objections, and candidates were evaluated on the revised total.
With the final answer key set to be released on December 9 and results on December 10, the Consortium faces mounting pressure to address the grievances of students, coaching institutes, and legal professionals. At stake is not just the credibility of CLAT but the integrity of India’s legal education system, as per many.
For now, the question which students and experts demand an answer to is: Will the consortium rise to the occasion and implement meaningful reforms, or will CLAT continue to be a test of patience as much as aptitude?
