CLAT 2025 Blunders: Check how many questions were wrong here

The Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) has released the CLAT Answer Key 2025 on December 02, 2024 at the official website. (https://consortiumofnlus.ac.in/clat-2025/notifications/Provisional-answer-keys-and-Objection-notification.pdf). The Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) has published the CLAT 2025 Answer Key on its official website as of December 2, 2024. Candidates who participated in the CLAT 2025 examination, conducted on December 1 from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM, can now review the correct answers to all the questions. Alongside the release of the answer key, the Consortium has opened an objection window, allowing students to raise challenges. This objection period will remain available until December 3, 2024, at 4:00 PM.

The release of the provisional answer key by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) for CLAT 2025 has, unsurprisingly, sparked widespread debate within the student community and legal education circles. While this annual ritual marks an important milestone in the CLAT examination process, the discrepancies that often accompany the answer key have become a matter of concern, reflecting deeper systemic issues. This year is no exception.

NLU CLAT Answer Key 2025 Date

The CLAT Provisional Answer Key 2025 is available for the students along with the opening of objection-raising window by 04:00 PM on December 02, 2024. The students will have the opportunity to register their objections by 04:00 PM on December 03, 2024.

The Importance of the Provisional Answer Key

This provisional answer key allows candidates to evaluate their performance and speculate upon a likely score/grade. It promotes transparency and opens up avenues for challenge on issues of errors by candidates before the announcement of final results. In theory, that is supposed to make the process fair and accountable in what is indeed one of the most competitive entrance exams in India.

Unfortunately, the usefulness of the provisional answer key is greatly compromised when ambiguities to plain wrong answers turn up in the key. For students who have spent years preparing for the CLAT, such errors are not just irritating; they can actually be destructive.

For example, suppose a student thinks they have answered a question correctly, only to find that the answer key states otherwise. This would leave that student with feelings of dissatisfaction and resentment towards the examination process. Also, one cannot deny the fact that there have been mistakes and inaccuracies with the examination process and final answer keys at various levels. What would happen in cases like this where a student ends up scoring less marks, despite possibly knowing the concepts quite well?

Discrepancies in the 2025 Answer Key: A Closer Look

This year, students and educators alike have raised concerns over several questions in the provisional answer key. These issues can broadly be categorized into three types:

1. Ambiguously Framed Questions:

Some questions in the legal reasoning and logical reasoning sections were criticized for their lack of clarity. For instance, a legal reasoning question about the applicability of a specific doctrine left candidates divided due to an ambiguously worded principle and fact scenario.

•  Incorrect or Controversial Answers:

Certain questions, particularly in the Logical Reasoning and Legal Reasoning, seem to have been marked with answers that contradict established facts. For example, question 83 of SET D pertaining to scenarios which would most likely result in void agreement was provided with two correct options

• Overlapping Options:

In some cases, answer choices were so similar that it was nearly impossible to determine the correct response without further context, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction among candidates. This lack of precision dilutes the objective of the test, creating unnecessary stress for candidates and diminishing the reliability of the examination as a fair assessment tool.

The Emotional and Practical Toll on Aspirants

For CLAT aspirants, the stakes are high. The months of preparation—often involving personal sacrifices, long hours of study, and significant financial investment—culminate in a single opportunity to secure admission to a top law school. Discrepancies in the answer key exacerbate the already immense pressure they face.

On an emotional level, such errors lead to frustration and a sense of injustice. Many students feel that their efforts are being undermined by the very system meant to evaluate their capabilities. On a practical level, incorrect answers can drastically alter a candidate’s rank and, consequently, their chances of securing a seat at their preferred NLU. This situation also creates a ripple effect in the broader legal education community. Parents, educators, and mentors, who place their trust in the fairness of the examination, are forced to question the Consortium’s commitment to maintaining high standards of accuracy and transparency.

What does this mean for the Consortium?

The Consortium has demonstrated again that its procedures are not fool-proof, for when it makes discrepancies in the provisional answer key. Human errors could be ignored, but it takes a very sharp eye and precision to handle exams like these that doesn’t leave rooms for mistake.

The consortium must take an immediate action on the following concerns:

1. Increased Question Vetting: Involving subject matter experts to rigorously scrutinize questions and answer choices for clarity, precision, and matching with syllabus.

2. Open Evaluation: To create fair trust and accountability, in the final key action, providing full rationale for disputed answers.

3. Engage Stakeholders: Educators and practitioners-both within and outside the immediate teaching cohort will be involved in active participation in the reviews.

A Path Forward

The provisional answer key is not merely a document; it is a reflection of the Consortium’s commitment to fairness, integrity, and excellence. While the current controversies highlight areas of improvement, they also offer an opportunity for the Consortium to reform its processes and restore confidence among aspirants.

For students, the lesson is twofold: first, to approach the discrepancies constructively by filing well-reasoned objections, and second, to remain resilient and focused despite the challenges. After all, the legal profession itself demands the ability to navigate complex and imperfect systems with clarity and purpose.

As the legal community awaits the Consortium’s response to the objections raised, one thing is clear: the credibility of the CLAT process hinges not on the absence of errors but on how effectively they are acknowledged and addressed. For now, the ball is in the Consortium’s court, and aspirants across the country are watching closely.