Today, On 24th December, After Madhya Pradesh, the Bombay High Court asked the NLU consortium to respond to a plea against the CLAT PG 2025 exam. The CLAT 2025 exam has faced criticism due to claims of incorrect answer keys for both UG and PG exams. Many candidates questioned the fairness of the evaluation process, leading to legal cases in different courts. The NLU consortium’s reply is expected to explain its position and address these concerns.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court issued a notice to the NLU Consortium regarding a plea that challenges the final answer key released for the Common Law Admission Test Post Graduate Examination for 2025 (CLAT PG 2025).
The Court also granted interim relief to the petitioner, stipulating that any selections made based on the final answer key would be subject to the outcome of the case.
The Court stated in its order,
“It is directed that any selection made by the respondent pursuant to the final answer key shall be subject to the final disposal of the case,”
This ruling came from a vacation bench comprising Justice SG Dige and Justice Advait M Sethna, in response to a plea filed by Anam Khan, a CLAT PG candidate who raised several grievances regarding the examination conducted on December 1.
Khan claimed that the provisional answer key, released on December 2, included “demonstrable errors,” with incorrect answers provided for 12 questions.
The petition also criticized the process for contesting the answer key, arguing that the one-day window for objections, which ended on December 3, was inadequate.
Additionally, the petitioner condemned the Rs.1,000 fee charged per objection as excessive, especially in light of the already substantial examination fee of Rs.4,000.
Khan’s plea sought to suspend the counselling process for admissions to postgraduate law courses at national law universities until the issue is resolved. Previously, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar at the Supreme Court declined to hear the matter and directed the petitioner to approach the relevant High Court.
During the hearing, Khan reiterated her concerns, referencing a similar case where the Madhya Pradesh High Court had granted relief. However, advocate Uday Warunjikar, representing the NLU Consortium, questioned the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate jurisdiction should be with the Karnataka High Court.
The Court, however, noted that since the petitioner took the examination at Government Law College in Mumbai, it was appropriate to entertain the plea. Consequently, it issued a notice to the NLU Consortium.
A regular bench of the Bombay High Court scheduled to hear the petition again on January 14, 2025, after the Court reopens.
The CLAT 2025 has been embroiled in controversy over incorrect answer keys, affecting both the PG and UG exams. While the PG exam results are being challenged in both the Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts, the Delhi High Court is addressing a related plea concerning the UG exam.
Earlier, The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a notice to the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) following a writ petition challenging the final answer key and fee structure of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT 2025) postgraduate (PG) examination.
The court has also directed the NLU Consortium to respond swiftly to the notice to prevent delays in the release of the final selection list.
The case has been listed for its next hearing on January 8, 2025. Meanwhile, the selection process will remain provisional until the court reaches a decision on the matter.
The petitioner, Ayush Agrawal, appeared for the CLAT PG 2025 exam held on December 1.
Agrawal contends that these factors impose a significant financial burden on candidates, limiting their ability to raise valid objections.
Before filing the petition in the High Court, the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court seeking relief. However, the Supreme Court directed him to approach the appropriate High Court for resolution. Following this advice, Ayush Agrawal filed the writ petition with the Madhya Pradesh High Court.