Today, On 30th April, The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court’s direction to revise the CLAT-UG 2025 merit list. This interim order was passed while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition challenging the April 23 order.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily suspended the Delhi High Court’s order that directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise marksheets and reissue the final list of selected candidates for CLAT-UG 2025 within a month.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih issued the interim order while also issuing a notice regarding a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s April 23 ruling.
Also Read: CLAT 2025 UG Exam || 15 Contested Questions & Answers Before Delhi High Court
The High Court Division Bench, led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and T.R. Gedela, had determined that there were errors in question papers sets B, C, and D.
The High Court stated,
“Since the error has occurred on the part of the respondent/Consortium itself, while publishing Sets ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ of question papers, no fault can be found with the candidates for giving or not giving correct or incorrect answers.”.
The High Court bench further added,
“In view of the fair admission by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent/Consortium, we direct that all the candidates who participated in CLAT UG 2025 with respect to the Sets ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ of question papers shall, as a consequence, be granted the marks indicated against the said question. Since Set ‘A’ did not have this error, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the marks obtained by all those candidates who answered correctly”.
A candidate who achieved All India Rank 22 challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that it disadvantaged candidates who received the A Set Question Paper compared to those who received sets B, C, and D, thus denying her a level playing field.
On April 23, the Delhi High Court ruled that there were errors in four questions and their corresponding answers in this year’s CLAT exam for undergraduate courses.
Also Read: Supreme Court Transfers All CLAT UG 2025 Result-Related Cases to Delhi High Court
Consequently, it instructed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to revise the marksheets of the candidates and publish/re-notify the final list of selected candidates within a four-week period.
The following errors in questions/answers were identified by the High Court:
- Question no. 5 of the master booklet: The answer key provided an incorrect option; option (c) is the correct answer. All candidates who marked option (c) are to receive credit.
- Question no 77 of the master booklet: The question was outside the syllabus and should be excluded and treated as withdrawn. Students who marked the correct answer will lose their mark, and students who marked the incorrect answer will gain 0.25 marks due to the reversal of negative marking.
- Question 115 of the master booklet: The answer in option (a), “Rs.204 approx,” as provided in the provisional answer key, was deemed incorrect. The answer in option (d), “None of these is the correct answer.” All candidates who attempted this question will receive full marks.
- Question 116 of the master booklet: All candidates who participated in CLAT UG 2025 with question paper sets B, C, and D are to be awarded marks for this question. As Set A did not contain this error, the Court did not interfere with the marks obtained by candidates who answered correctly.
The High Court’s judgment was delivered in a group of petitions related to the CLAT 2025 exams, following an order from the Supreme Court to transfer them from various High Courts to the Delhi High Court.
Previously, on December 20, 2024, a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh had partly allowed a plea filed by Aditya Singh, a 17-year-old CLAT candidate, concerning alleged errors in the CLAT UG paper.
This ruling was challenged before a division bench of the High Court, with the NLU Consortium arguing that the single-judge had improperly assumed the role of an expert. The CLAT candidate also filed an appeal before the division bench, seeking further revision of his result.
Subsequently, the NLU Consortium petitioned the Supreme Court to transfer the matter to the apex court. Petitions challenging the CLAT results were also pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court, among others.
To prevent these parallel proceedings, the NLU Consortium requested the Supreme Court to consolidate the cases in a single court, which the Supreme Court granted.
The matter was then heard by the aforementioned Division Bench of the High Court.
Case Title: SIDDHI SANDEEP LADDA vs CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ANR , Diary No. 22324-2025