Delhi HC directs NLU Consortium to announce revised CLAT 2025 results | Latest News Delhi

A Jyoti Singh bench ordered the consortium to make corrections to two questions 14 and 100 of Series A of the examination paper, saying the errors contained therein were “patently clear” and that close the eyes on these issues would amount to turning a blind eye. would be an injustice to the candidates.

In her 29-page decision, Justice Singh further ordered the consortium to extend the benefit to all candidates who had opted for Option C in question 14 of Set A and ordered the exclusion of question 100.

“This is not a case in which the courts should take a completely hands-off approach. The errors in Questions Nos. 14 and 100 are patently clear and turn a blind eye to the same potential injustice to the petitioner, although this Court is aware that this may impact the outcome of other candidates,” said the court in its order of December 20, published Saturday.

The bench added, “Accordingly, it is ordered that the result of the petitioner be revised to award him marks for Question No. 14 as per the marking scheme. Since the Court upheld option ‘C’ as the correct answer, which was also the opinion of the expert committee, the benefit cannot be limited only to the petitioner and will extend to all candidates having opted for option “C”. Question No. 100 will be excluded as correctly advised by the Expert Committee and the result will be revised accordingly.

The court was responding to a plea filed by a 17-year-old candidate, Aditya Singh, who appeared for the exam, challenging the final answer key declared by the CLAT and sought constitution of an expert committee to examine the objections to the response. keys deposited by him. In his petition before the High Court, Singh had argued that his chances of admission were compromised due to the error in the answer keys. A proper decision, the plea added, would have helped him secure a higher rank and qualify for admission to a more prestigious institution.

The consortium represented by senior counsel Sandeep Sethi claimed that Singh had no case on merits and that objections to the five questions he preferred had no basis in law.

He had urged the court to dismiss the petition on territorial jurisdiction, saying the Consortium was a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, with a permanent secretariat at Bengaluru, Karnataka. The senior counsel also submitted that its membership included various NLUs and no NLU, located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, was a member.

In its 29-page decision, the court rejected the consortium’s objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, finding it unfounded. “Unquestionably, the petitioner attempted the online examination within the territorial limits of this Court and the issues raised before this Court relate to alleged errors in the answer key relating to the said examination. Therefore, a part of the cause of action, even if tiny, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and merely because the permanent secretariat of the respondent is situated at Bengaluru in Karnataka, it cannot be argued that this Court has no jurisdiction,” the tribunal said. maintained.

Sethi had also argued that the courts did not have the expertise to evaluate the answers to the exam questions nor the opportunity to comment on the independent evaluations, analysis and conclusions of the experts who evaluated the answers to the questions. Dismissing the same, Justice Singh, in her ruling, held that there is no absolute bar against a court from considering a challenge to the answer key in a review process, even if it has an expert opinion. ”