In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court ordered the Consortium of National Law Universities (Consortium) to release updated CLAT results 2025 for the UG program. The court’s decision concerns inaccuracies in the marking of two questions of the exam paper’s Set A, questions 14 and 100. The court’s responsibility in guaranteeing fairness in competitive exams is highlighted by this ruling, which was rendered by Justice Jyoti Singh.
Inaccuracies in Questions 14 and 100 of CLAT 2025
Provable mistakes in the two questions were the source of the debate. In her 29-page decision, Justice Singh made clear that candidates would have suffered unfairness if these mistakes had been ignored. The court ordered that:
- All candidates who choose option ‘C’ for Question 14 will receive marks.
- Question 100 should not be included in the evaluation process at all.
In its reasoning, the court stressed the importance of fairness in competitive exams and the need to correct mistakes that have an impact on candidates’ scores.
CLAT 2025 Result – Judicial Intervention: Balancing Fairness and Jurisdiction
Justice Singh said that this case required assistance because of the obvious mistakes made, even though she acknowledged the significance of upholding judicial restraint in academic affairs. The court stated that “the errors in Question Nos. 14 and 100 are demonstrably clear, and it would be injustice to the Petitioner to shut a blind eye to the same.”
Sandeep Sethi, a senior lawyer for the Consortium, argued against judicial involvement, pointing out that the petitioner’s concerns had any legal foundation and that the Consortium lacked territorial jurisdiction. However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that since the petitioner took the exam inside the borders of Delhi, a portion of the cause of action originated within its territorial jurisdiction.
The Court’s Directions:
The court’s order gives specific directions:
- Marks Will Be Given: Those who selected option ‘C’ for Question 14 will be awarded marks accordingly.
- Question 100 Exclusion: In accordance with the expert committee’s recommendations, this question will not be included in the evaluation process at all.
- Updated Results: In light of these modifications, the Consortium is required to release updated results.
These directions ensure that the benefit of the court’s ruling is extended to all affected candidates, not just the petitioner.
Background of the Case of CLAT Answer Key 2025:
The petitioner, a 17-year-old student, Aditya Singh, has filed a petition against the final answer key of CLAT 2025. According to Singh, the answer key is flawed and will most probably debar him from getting admission in a leading prestigious institution. He prayed for the constitution of a committee of experts that may go through the objections and make corrections.
Table 1: Key Details of the Case
| Aspect | Details |
| Petitioner | Aditya Singh (17 years old) |
| Contested Questions | Nos. 14 and 100 in Set A |
| Court’s Decision | Award marks for Q14; exclude Q100 |
| Respondent’s Argument | No jurisdiction; no basis for objections |
Consortium’s Stance and Legal Challenges:
The Consortium, through several senior counsels, argued that the petitioned case had no merit. They also argued courts should rather stay away from meddling into academic issues, given that the committees evaluating the answer key have expertise over the matters. The court, however, rejected these arguments in the following manner:
- Courts are not totally prohibited from looking into answer keys.
- The petitioner’s claim has good grounds for judicial review considering the demonstrable errors.
- Part of the cause of action arose in Delhi; hence, the court’s jurisdiction is valid.
Implications for CLAT 2025 Candidates:
This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on CLAT 2025 candidates. The revision of results could alter ranks and, consequently, admission prospects for numerous aspirants. The court’s directive to revise results underscores the importance of accuracy and fairness in competitive examinations, where even minor errors can have far-reaching consequences.
Expected Changes Post Revised CLAT Results 2025
| Aspect | Original Result | Revised Result |
| Candidates Benefited (Q14) | Approx. 5,000 | TBD (after revision) |
| Exclusion of Q100 | Not applicable | Implemented |
Broader Lessons:
The case brings to light more general problems with the way competitive tests are administered:
- Robust Evaluation: To preserve confidence in competitive exams, a precise and open evaluation procedure is essential.
- Judicial Oversight: The judiciary’s responsibility to correct mistakes that hurt candidates.
- Consortium’s Accountability: The need for the Consortium to ensure the reliability of its processes and the fairness of its outcomes.
Conclusion:
The ruling in the CLAT 2025 case by the Delhi High Court establishes a significant precedent for fairness and accountability in competitive exams. The decision upholds the idea that fairness must be the foundation for the administration of any test by correcting observable mistakes and guaranteeing justice for impacted applicants. This case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility as a defender of justice and integrity in public processes when the Consortium updates its findings.
