An appeal has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging a single-judge’s recent verdict on a plea raising concerns about errors in the questions and final answer key released for the Common Law Admission Test, 2025 (CLAT) for undergraduate law admissions. A single judge had earlier found errors in two questions and directed a revision of CLAT results. The law aspirant who filed the plea, however, says that the single judge failed to notice other ‘blatant mistakes.’
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A student moved the Delhi High Court, challenging a single judge’s recent decision regarding errors in the questions and final answer key for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025, which is used for undergraduate law admissions.
On December 20, a single judge of the Delhi High Court partially allowed a plea by a 17-year-old CLAT candidate. The court acknowledged mistakes in two specific questions from the CLAT-UG 2025 exam, conducted for admissions to National Law Universities (NLUs). Based on these findings, the court directed the Consortium of NLUs to re-evaluate the results after correcting these errors.
However, the petitioner has claimed that three additional “blatant mistakes” in the exam were overlooked by the single judge.
Dissatisfied with the partial relief, the student has filed an appeal (through his father), seeking a further revision of the CLAT results.
Errors in Five Questions Flagged by Petitioner
The appellant asserted that his concerns were centered on five erroneous questions.
The single judge, Justice Jyoti Singh, acknowledged mistakes in only two questions (questions 14 and 100 of Set A of the CLAT-UG paper).
Court’s Findings on Question 14
In her verdict, Justice Singh ruled that the correct answer to question 14 was option “C”, which contradicted the answer initially provided in the CLAT answer key.
The court observed:
“Since 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’.”
Court’s Findings on Question 100
Regarding question 100, the court decided that it should be completely excluded from the evaluation process.
The court remarked:
“Question number 100 will be excluded as correctly advised by the Expert Committee and the result will be accordingly revised.”
Based on these corrections, the Consortium was instructed to revise and publish the updated results.
Appeal Highlights Errors in Three Additional Questions
Despite the corrections for questions 14 and 100, the petitioner argued that the court failed to address critical errors in three other questions: 37, 67, and 68.
These issues, he claims, jeopardize the fairness and credibility of the entire examination process.
The plea emphasized:
“The errors in the remaining questions i.e. questions no. 37, 67 and 68 contain blatant mistakes that affect the integrity of the entire examination process. Despite this, the Court did not intervene to correct these questions, leaving the appellant and many other candidates at a disadvantage.”
The petitioner has now urged the Division Bench of the High Court to amend the single judge’s ruling, particularly concerning these three remaining questions.
Appeal Criticizes Standard Used in Judgment
In addition to raising concerns about the uncorrected errors, the appeal also challenged the standard applied by the court in evaluating the questions. The petitioner argued:
“Ld. Single Judge should have applied the standard expected of the candidates appearing in the CLAT-2025 exam and not the standard of legal knowledge and skill exhibited by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents.”
Hearing Scheduled for Tomorrow
The appeal is set to be heard tomorrow by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
The outcome will determine whether the three additional questions flagged by the petitioner will also be reviewed and corrected, potentially impacting the final results of thousands of CLAT aspirants.
The CLAT candidate was represented by Advocates Dhanesh Relan, Arjeet Gaur, Barinda Batra, Atul Kanti Tripathi, Suryansh Jamwal, and Sachin Sharma.
The Consortium of NLUs was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi along with Advocates Arun Srikumar, AK Trivedi, Ram Shankar, Yash Jagra, Shubhansh Thakur, and Shreya Sethi.
CASE TITLE:
Aditya Singh (Minor) vs Consortium Of National Law Universities.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CLAT 2025
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
