Acting CJ Vibhu Bhakru made a remark, stating that there was nothing wrong with the single judge’s earlier decision to express concerns about the English comprehension questions.
![[CLAT 2025 Questions Errors] Single Judge 'Charitable' in Calling CLAT Questions 'Demonstrably Wrong': Delhi HC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CLAT-2025-Question-Errors-_-Law-Aspirant-Files-An-Appeal-In-Delhi-HC-Challenging-Single-Judges-Verdict.jpeg?resize=800%2C450&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(24th Dec), the Delhi High Court refused to stay a single-judge order instructing the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU Consortium) to revise the results of the Common Law Admission Test 2025 (CLAT-UG) due to errors found in two questions.
A Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that, prima facie, they found no error in the single-judge’s findings.
They observed,
“Prima facie, we find no error in the single-judge’s decision that the two questions were demonstrably wrong. The single-judge thoroughly considered the issues, and a different view is not plausible. We concur with the decision and do not see the need for an interim order at this stage.”
Acting Chief Justice Bakhru also raised concerns about why the two errors had not been corrected by the expert committees of CLAT.
The Bench clarified that the NLU Consortium can proceed with announcing the results in accordance with the single-judge’s order and scheduled further hearings for January 7, 2025.
“The single judge was generous in stating that the questions were demonstrably wrong. This situation warrants further scrutiny. It is shocking that two committees did not identify the issues. There are questions about the application of minds. If there are multiple wrong answers, how do you decide which one to eliminate, apart from stating that the committees said so?”
he remarked.Single Judge’s Order
On December 20, Justice Jyoti Singh partly granted the plea of a 17-year-old CLAT candidate, who had flagged errors in the CLAT paper for undergraduate admissions to National Law Universities (NLUs).
Justice Singh agreed that there were clear mistakes in two out of five questions raised by the candidate. She emphasized that the court could not remain passive in the face of such errors, and directed the NLU Consortium to announce revised results with changes to the marks for these two questions. The revised results were to be applied to all CLAT candidates.
In her 29-page ruling, Justice Singh also ordered the Consortium to extend the benefit to all candidates who had chosen Option C for Question 14 in Set A and to exclude Question 100 from the results.
The court stated, “This is not a case where the courts should adopt a complete hands-off approach. The errors in Question Nos. 14 and 100 are demonstrably clear, and ignoring them would be unjust to the Petitioner, though the Court is aware that this may affect the results of other candidates.”
Justice Singh further ruled that the Petitioner’s result should be revised to award marks for Question 14 based on the correct answer, Option C, which the Expert Committee had also agreed upon. This benefit would extend to all candidates who had selected Option C. Additionally, Question 100 would be excluded, in line with the Expert Committee’s recommendation.
READ ALSO: NLU Consortium Filed Appeal Against Delhi High Court’s Order to Revise CLAT 2025 Results
On 23rd Dec, NLU Consortium has now challenged the decision, arguing that the single judge overstepped by acting as an expert. The Consortium pointed out that the final CLAT answer key had been reviewed by experts, and the judge’s involvement contradicted established legal principles. The Consortium’s appeal asserts that courts cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters, including competitive exams.
Similarly, A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court on 5th Dec challenging the provisional answer key for the recently conducted Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for postgraduate (PG) admissions.
The petitioners, who appeared for LLM admissions to National Law Universities, have raised concerns about the CLAT 2025 exam, held by the Consortium of National Law Universities on December 1.
They claim that the provisional answer key, released on December 2, contains multiple errors, specifically alleging inaccuracies in the answers to 12 questions.
Case Title: Consortium of National Law Universities vs Aditya Singh (Minor)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
