The Delhi High Court is reviewing a petition that challenges the accuracy of the CLAT 2025 final answer key, crucial for law admissions in India. Justice Jyoti Singh emphasizes the need for judicial intervention if exam errors are evident, asserting that failing to do so would be unjust. The case highlights the importance of fair assessment in competitive exams.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday delved into a petition challenging the accuracy of the final answer key for CLAT 2025 (UG), highlighting the delicate balance between judicial restraint and the need for justice in competitive exams. Justice Jyoti Singh noted that while courts usually adopt a “hands-off approach” in academic matters, intervention becomes necessary if errors in exam questions or answers are “demonstrably wrong.”
The petition, filed by a 17-year-old law aspirant through advocate Arjeet Gaur, alleges errors in the final answer key issued by the NLU Consortium. CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) determines admissions to undergraduate law programs at National Law Universities (NLUs) across India, making the accuracy of its answer key critical for candidates’ futures.
The petitioner contends that some answers provided in the key are incorrect, unfairly impacting scores and ranks. The plea seeks judicial review to ensure fairness.
Justice Singh scrutinized the matter and remarked,
“When answers to questions are demonstrably, palpably wrong, not interfering would be injustice to the candidates.”
She cited past judgments where courts intervened in similar situations.
Referring to a disputed question, Justice Singh observed that the correct answer should have been either “Sohan” or “none of the above”, but the answer key marked “data inadequate” as correct.
“It took me 30 seconds to understand the right answer was supposed to be ‘Sohan.’ It is no rocket science,”
the judge remarked.
The NLU Consortium, represented by counsel, argued against judicial intervention, emphasizing that three expert committees had reviewed objections. They maintained that sometimes candidates must select the “closest” answer if none of the options are straightforward. The counsel also raised concerns about the potential disruption to the NLU admission process if the court intervenes.
However, the court distinguished between questions with ambiguous answers and those with entirely incorrect options, emphasizing,
“If all the answers are incorrect, you have to give benefit to the candidate.”
While the Consortium pointed out that the petitioner had not failed to meet the cut-off but was likely seeking a higher rank, the Court underlined the broader implications for all candidates. The hearing will resume on Thursday at 2:30 PM.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE