Logo Icon

Delhi High Court Upholds Decision to Revise CLAT 2025 Results Amid Controversy

Author : Samriddhi Pandey

December 24, 2024

SHARE

The Delhi High Court, on 24 December 2024, declined to stay a single-judge order mandating the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU Consortium) to revise the results of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025 Undergraduate (UG) exam due to errors identified in two questions. The case, which has sparked debates about the credibility of CLAT's evaluation process, was brought before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.

Latest Updates: First Allotment Delayed Due to HC Order

The Controversy: Flawed Questions in CLAT 2025

The dispute originated from a petition filed by a 17-year-old CLAT aspirant who flagged discrepancies in five questions of the UG paper. On December 20, Justice Jyoti Singh partially allowed the petition, ruling that two of these flagged questions were demonstrably erroneous. The judge directed the NLU Consortium to re-evaluate marks and release revised results for all candidates.

NLU Preference List 2025

Justice Singh emphasized that the errors were too glaring to ignore and stated that courts could not adopt a "hands-off" approach when such evident mistakes were brought to light. While addressing the plea, she ordered the NLU Consortium to adjust scores for the identified errors and issue updated rankings.

Do you know the difference between CLAT Marks vs Rank?

Division Bench Declines Stay Request

The NLU Consortium challenged the single-judge decision, arguing that courts should not interfere in matters evaluated by subject experts. However, the Division Bench dismissed the request for a stay. Acting Chief Justice Bakhru questioned the Consortium's expert committees' inability to identify and rectify the errors, remarking that the apparent lack of rigor in the evaluation process raised serious concerns.

“The single judge was charitable in describing the questions as demonstrably wrong. This situation warrants stronger critique. It’s shocking that two committees overlooked such fundamental errors,” observed Justice Bakhru. The Bench highlighted the importance of accountability in high-stakes examinations and refused to grant interim relief.

The case has been listed for further hearing on January 7, 2025, allowing the Consortium to proceed with the revised results in the interim.

Read More: Latest News on Seat Allotment in CLAT 2025

Appeals from Both Sides

Interestingly, both the NLU Consortium and the CLAT aspirant have appealed the December 20 ruling. While the Consortium contends that the judiciary should not override expert evaluations, the aspirant has sought further corrections. The aspirant claims that three additional questions, apart from the two already addressed, contain blatant errors and has urged the court to extend its ruling to include these questions.

The Broader Implications

The case underscores a recurring issue in competitive exams: the lack of scrutiny in question setting and evaluation. With thousands of aspirants vying for limited seats in prestigious National Law Universities (NLUs), any error can significantly impact rankings and opportunities.

The ongoing debate raises critical questions about the role of expert committees in maintaining the integrity of high-stakes exams. It also highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring fairness when such errors occur.

Updates About: CLAT 2025 Counselling Process

What’s Next?

As the matter awaits further deliberation in January, the NLU Consortium must comply with the single-judge order and release revised results. The court’s final verdict could have a significant impact not only on the candidates of CLAT 2025 but also on how future editions of the exam are conducted and evaluated.

This case serves as a reminder that transparency and accountability are paramount in the administration of competitive exams, especially when students’ futures are at stake. Whether the court extends its scrutiny to the additional errors flagged or upholds the limited corrections remains to be seen.