CLAT 2025: Delhi HC orders Consortium of NLUs to announce revised outcomes
The Delhi excessive court docket has directed the Consortium of Nationwide Legislation Universities (Consortium) to announce revised outcomes of the not too long ago held Widespread Legislation Admission Take a look at (CLAT) 2025 undergraduate examination, after making adjustments within the award of marks for 2 questions.
Additionally learn: Bengaluru teen scores all-India rank 10 in CLAT UG 2025 with 99.98 percentile: Report
A bench of justice Jyoti Singh directed the consortium to make corrections close to two questions- 14 and 100 in Set A of the examination paper, saying that the errors in the identical had been “demonstrably clear” and shutting a blind eye to the identical would-be injustice to the candidates.
In her 29-page ruling, justice Singh additional directed the consortium to increase the profit to all of the candidates who had opted for possibility C towards query 14 in set A and ordered for excluding query 100.
“This isn’t a case the place the courts ought to undertake a whole hands-off method. The errors in Query Nos.14 and 100 are demonstrably clear and shutting a blind eye to the identical would-be injustice to the Petitioner albeit this Court docket is aware of the truth that it might affect the results of different candidates,” the court docket stated in its December 20 order, launched on Saturday.
The bench added, “Accordingly, it’s directed that the results of the Petitioner might be revised to award marks to him for Query No.14 in accordance with the scheme of marking. For the reason that Court docket has upheld possibility ‘C’ as the right reply, which was additionally the view of the Professional Committee, profit can’t be restricted solely to the Petitioner and can lengthen to all candidates who’ve opted for possibility ‘C”. Query No.100 might be excluded as appropriately suggested by the Professional Committee and the end result might be accordingly revised.”
Additionally learn: CLAT 2025 outcomes: Lucknow schoolboy Shantanu Dwivedi emerges as state topper, secures AIR 8
The court docket was responding to a plea filed by a 17-year-old candidate, Aditya Singh, who had appeared within the examination, difficult the ultimate reply key declared by CLAT and had sought structure of an professional committee to contemplate the objections to the reply keys filed by him. In his petition earlier than the excessive court docket, Singh had contended that his admission prospects had been prejudiced as a result of error within the reply keys. A correct adjudication, the plea went on so as to add, would have helped him safe a better rank and qualify for admission in a extra prestigious establishment.
The consortium represented by senior advocate Sandeep Sethi asserted that Singh had no case on deserves and the objections to the 5 questions most popular by him had no foundation in regulation.
He had urged the court docket to dismiss the petition on territorial jurisdiction contending that the Consortium was a society registered underneath the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 with a everlasting Secretariat in Bengaluru in Karnataka. The senior counsel additionally contended that its members included varied NLUs and no NLU, positioned inside the court docket’s territorial jurisdiction, was its member.
Additionally learn: Faridabad boy tops clat 2025, scores 103.5 out of 116 marks
In its 29-page ruling, the court docket dismissed the consortium’s objection relating to territorial jurisdiction, saying that the identical had no benefit. “Indisputably, Petitioner has tried the web examination inside the territorial boundaries of this Court docket and the problems agitated earlier than this Court docket concern alleged errors within the reply key pertaining to the stated examination. Subsequently, a part of explanation for motion, though miniscule has arisen inside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court docket and merely as a result of the everlasting secretariat of the Respondent is positioned at Bengaluru in Karnataka, it can’t be argued that this Court docket has no jurisdiction,” the court docket maintained.
Sethi had additionally contended that courts don’t have the experience to guage or assess solutions to questions within the examinations and the scope of commenting on impartial assessments, evaluation and conclusion of consultants who’ve evaluated the solutions to the questions. Rejecting the identical, justice Singh in her ruling, opined that there isn’t any absolute proscription towards a court docket in analyzing a problem to the reply key in an examination course of, regardless of there being an professional opinion earlier than it.
