SC pulls up NLU consortium over errors in CLAT 2025; seeks government’s response

THe sublime margaret court on wed pulled up the pool of subject Law Universities (NLUs) for setting up questions for the national Common Law Admission Test-Undergraduate (CLAT-UG) 2025 in the most “casual” manner as it directed changes in the marking pattern of six questions. The court also sought the Centre’s response to have a permanent mechanism for conducting the examination similar to NEET and other combined entrance tests in the interest of students. The bench headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai and comprising of justice Augustine George Masih, said, “At the outset, we must express our anguish at the casual manner in which the consortium has been framing the questions for CLAT exam which involves careers and aspirations of lakhs of students in the country.” The bench noted that in some questions, the answer key issued by the consortium was contrary to past Supreme Court judgments and in one question, the answer required students to make calculations, that could not be expected in an objective test on legal reasoning. The court was hearing two petitions filed by candidates who appeared in the CLAT-UG 2025 expressing disappointment on the April 23 decision of the Delhi high court which had scrutinised 17 questions and recommended changes in marks for four of those. The changes included grace marks being awarded to all candidates who attempted three out of the four sets of questions, excluding Set A. Going by the questions framed and the answers to six questions called in question, the bench remarked, “This sort of consortium you have vice chancellors calling themselves academicians of high repute...which vice chancellor has framed these questions.” Senior advocates KK Venugopal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the petitioners pointed out that errors in CLAT are not new and on two occasions in the past – in 2013 and 2018, orders were passed by the top court expressing concern on the conduct of CLAT and sought responses from the Union government and Bar Council of India (BCI), directing them to take steps to ensure there is no loss caused to students. The bench mooted for a permanent mechanism for conduct of CLAT and said, “Why should not there be a permanent mechanism to avoid these errors. What is the Union government doing about it. They can have a mechanism similar to what they have for conducting NEET, JEE, etc.” The court noted that a petition in this regard is already pending since 2015 filed by law professor Shamnad Bashir. As the petitioner is no more, Sankaranarayanan urged the court to direct listing of this matter suo motu instead of keeping the petition of students pending as they are likely to get admission in NLUs. Also Read:Supreme Court stays Delhi HC order to revise undergraduate CLAT 2025 results Accepting the suggestion, the court said, “In academic matters, court is generally slow in interfering as we do not possess the expertise. But when academicians themselves act in such a manner, which affects lakhs of students, the court is left with no option but to interfere.” As the petitions before the top court raised doubts about the answers to six questions decided by the high court, the bench examined each of them in detail. In one question related to environment issues, the bench noted that the answer selected by the consortium said that the fundamental duty to preserve environment is that of the state, even as there was an option given for the same question that the responsibility lies with both state and citizens. The court said, “In many judgments, this court has ruled that both state and citizens have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources... We are amazed at such stand taken by the consortium having experts in the legal field. We cannot accept the answer given in the answer key for Q 56 and direct the consortium to give positive marking to all students who answered options (c) and (d) -- relating to citizens and states, and those who ticked option (a) and (b) be given negative marking.” In two other questions (Q 115 and Q 116) in one of the sets of CLAT-UG, the court found that the students were required to do mathematical calculations. Senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for the consortium, submitted that this was elementary mathematics of Class 8 level which students are expected to know to which the court said, “The question is so complicated. Do you expect boys and girls aged 16-17 years to go there with a calculator and answer this. For answering the question, one has to undergo detailed mathematical analysis which cannot be expected in an objective test.” Sankaranarayanan said that each year, a different NLU is allowed to set the questions. He requested the court to revisit the scheme which allows NLUs to conduct the examination. The bench agreed to consider this issue. As regards the present CLAT-UG 2025, the direction issued on Wednesday has given finality to the examination held on December 1 last year. The results were declared on December 7 following which petitions were filed across the country and the Supreme Court in February directed all matters to be heard by the Delhi high court. Initially, a single judge bench had considered the matter and recommended changes in marking pattern that was later appealed before the division bench leading to the April 23 decision.