The Delhi High Court has ordered the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the CLAT 2025 undergraduate exam results due to errors in two questions. The court stated that this correction should be applied to all candidates while excluding one question from scoring. This decision highlights the need for accurate evaluation in competitive exams to uphold candidates’ aspirations.
Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ordered the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the results of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025 undergraduate exam for admission to the 5-year LLB course. This decision comes after the Court identified errors in two questions from Set A of the examination [Aditya Singh (Minor) vs Consortium Of National Law Universities].
Justice Jyoti Singh directed corrections in question numbers 14 and 100 following a petition challenging the accuracy of the answer key.
“The errors in question Nos. 14 and 100 are demonstrably clear, and shutting a blind eye to the same would be injustice to the petitioner albeit this Court is conscious of the fact that it may impact the result of other candidates,”
the Court stated.
The High Court ordered that the benefit of marking option ‘C’ as correct for question 14 be extended to all candidates who selected it. Additionally, question 100 will be excluded from scoring as per the advice of the Expert Committee.
The judgment emphasized the judiciary’s restrained yet crucial role in addressing blatant errors in examination answer keys.
“While Constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters, in exceptional cases where questions are found to be demonstrably wrong, the resultant injustice to a candidate must be redressed,”
the Court noted.
This decision followed a petition by 17-year-old Aditya Singh, who challenged the Consortium’s final answer key. Singh argued that errors in the key resulted in lost marks, adversely affecting his admission prospects.
The petitioner highlighted that despite raising objections during the provisional answer key stage, the final answer key repeated the same mistakes. Singh further alleged that the Consortium conducted the counseling process without resolving grievances raised through its redressal mechanism.
The High Court’s ruling directs the Consortium to revise the results and ensure fairness for all candidates impacted by the errors. It underscores the importance of accurate evaluation in maintaining the credibility of competitive examinations and upholding the aspirations of candidates.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
