The Delhi High Court (HC) has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to announce the revised results of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025 undergraduate exam after making changes in the award of marks for two questions, as reported by The Hindustan Times.
A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh directed the consortium to make corrections with regard to two questions — 14 and 100 — in Set A of the exam paper, saying that the errors in the same were “demonstrably clear” and turning 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.”
Candidate's petition
The court was responding to a plea filed by Aditya Singh, a 17-year-old candidate who had appeared in the exam. Singh challenged the final answer key declared by CLAT and sought the constitution of an expert committee to consider his objections to the answer keys. In his petition to the high court, Singh contended that the error in the answer keys prejudiced his admission prospects. The plea went on to add that a proper adjudication would have helped him secure a higher rank and qualify for admission to a more prestigious institution.
Represented by senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, the consortium 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, 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.
