Delhi HC to pass verdict Wednesday on pleas over errors in CLAT UG-2025 questionnaire
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court is scheduled to pronounce on Wednesday its order on a batch of petitions alleging certain errors in the Common Law Admission Test UG-2025 questionnaire.
According to the cause list uploaded on the court's website, a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela will pass the verdict on April 23 at 2:30 pm.
The court on April 9 concluded hearing the lawyers for petitioner aspirants, who appeared in the exam in December 2024, and Consortium of National Law Universities and reserved its order.
The court had heard arguments on the questions which are under challenge in the petitions.
It is yet to hear the petitions which have challenged certain questions in CLAT PG- 2025.
The common law admission test determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in national law universities in the country.
Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts alleging several questions in the exam were wrong.
On February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions over the issue to the Delhi High Court for a "consistent adjudication".
The top court passed the direction on the transfer petitions of CNLUs.
The Delhi High Court had earlier said "suspense and anxiety" were not good for the aspirants and that it intended to complete hearing on the petitions at the earliest for the results to be declared.
There was an urgency in the petitions concerning the undergraduate examinations and the petitions for the post graduate course would be taken up separately, it had added.
Several students wanted the cases to be transferred to the Delhi High Court, saying it passed a favourable order for some petitioners by identifying errors in two questions of the CLAT-UG 2025 exam and directing the consortium to revise their results.
On December 20, 2024, a Delhi High Court's single judge bench directed the consortium to revise the result of CLAT-2025 over the errors in the answer key.
The single judge's verdict, which came on the plea of a CLAT aspirant, ruled the answers to two questions in the entrance test were wrong.
The plea challenged the answer key published by the consortium on December 7, 2024 while seeking a direction to declare correct answers to certain questions.
The single judge bench said the errors were "demonstrably clear" and "shutting a blind eye" would amount to injustice.
While the aspirant challenged the single judge's order which refused his prayer over the other two questions, the consortium also moved the division bench of the Delhi High Court against the single judge's decision.
On December 24, 2024, the division bench refused to pass any interim order after prima facie finding no error with the single judge's order over the two questions and said the consortium was free to declare the results in terms of the judge's decision.
The CLAT, 2025 for admissions in five-year LLB courses in NLUs was held on December 1 and results were declared on December 7, 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
State pushed back 330 illegal foreigners: CM
1 2 3 Guwahati: Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Monday informed a one-day special sitting of the legislative assembly that about 330 illegal foreigners have been pushed back from the state so far and govt is waiting for floods to recede to send back another 35 individuals. "Of the 330 people we have pushed back, none of them have returned. It is impossible for them to return now," he added. He said the process of evicting illegal foreigners from Assam will now be intensified and expedited. "As Pakistani elements and fundamentalist elements from Bangladesh have entered Assam, we have to be proactive like never before to protect the state from these elements," Sarma added. He said this is also the reason why state govt has decided to revive Immigration (Expulsion from Assam) act of 1950 and enforce it. "Under this law, a deputy commissioner can push back whoever he finds to be an illegal foreigner without referring them to the Foreigners' Tribunals," he added. He reiterated that those having appeals in courts will not be touched. Sarma said a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court recently ruled that the IEA Act is in force and the state govt can proceed under its provisions.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Calcutta HC stays payouts to sacked group-C, D staff
The Calcutta High Court on Monday directed the West Bengal government not to pay monthly allowance to the Group-C and Group-D categories of employees, who lost their jobs following a Supreme Court verdict in April, along with the SSC teachers. Recently, the Trinamool government announced a monthly allowance of Rs 20,000 and Rs 25,00 for Group-C and Group-D categories respectively under a new scheme 'West Bengal Livelihood and Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025' early this month. Justice Amrita Sinha , who was hearing the case today, asked the state's Advocate General Kishore Dutta, whether the Group-C and D employees, who will get the allowance under the 'West Bengal Livelihood and Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025' will do some work or will get the allowance, sitting at home. Dutta, however, stated the matter included in the scheme. "This money is allocated from a special fund, Dutta added. Justice Sinha asked on what basis the allowance was determined and how many employees will get this money? In which cases was such financial assistance given in the past?"
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
The Curious Case of Removal Of 2 Judges And Routes Adopted
New Delhi: The process to remove judges is not initiated often in the country - taking place only five times since Independence. But in recent times, the process has been started for two judges - both from the Allahabad High Court -- within months of each other. But the progress of the two cases appear to vary widely, with one being conducted by the Rajya Sabha and the other being an internal process of the judiciary. In December last year, Justice Shekhar Yadav was accused of giving a hate speech while in March, burnt cash was found in the house of Justice Yashwant Varma. The in-house procedure against Justice Verma is expected to be wrapped up in the coming monsoon session of Parliament. But the fate of Justice Shekhar Yadav is not yet decided. The cases highlight the procedural complexities involved in holding High Court judges accountable in India. While Justice Yadav's matter is locked within Parliament's jurisdiction, Justice Varma's case progressed swiftly under the judiciary's internal mechanisms. How Parliamentary Procedure Blocked Internal Probe The objectionable speech of Justice Yadav was made at an event of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on December 8. Days later, on December 13, 55 MPs led by senior lawyer and MP Kapil Sibal had submitted a proposal for his removal to the Rajya Sabha Speaker. The prompt action barred the way for the Supreme Court to begin any in-house procedure against the judge. In March, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat wrote to the Supreme Court's Secretary General about Justice Yadav, formally starting the process of the Judges Inquiry Act. Under this, the Rajya Sabha Chairman has to form a three-member inquiry panel. This would include the Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of the High Court and an "eminent jurist", who will investigate the grounds on which the removal of the concerned judge has been sought. After this the committee will frame charges against the concerned judge, who will be allowed to respond within a specified time. The Supreme Court had also moved parallelly on the matter. On December 17, the collegium headed by then Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna --comprising the seniormost judges, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A S Oka -- had taken note of news reports about Justice Yadav's December 8 speech. On December 10, they sought a report from the High Court, tasking it with investigating the issue. Justice Yadav appeared before the Collegium in the Supreme Court on December 17 and offered to explain the purpose, meaning and context of his speech. He contended that the media had selectively quoted from his speech to create unnecessary controversy. But the Collegium did not agree and reprimanded him over certain of his statements. The Collegium told him that being in a constitutional position, the conduct of an judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court is under constant scrutiny and he is expected to maintain the dignity of his office. The matter then lost momentum and on February 13, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar clarified that only Parliament has the right to remove a High Court judge constitutionally, as the notice for removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav is pending with him. The Rajya Sabha chairman had earlier submitted the removal motion, and the Collegium realised that they did not have an internal investigation process available to them since the matter was already under consideration of the Rajya Sabha chairman. Burnt Cash at Justice Yashwant Varma's Residence Sparked In-House Action Justice Yashwant Varma had come under scrutiny after a fire broke out at his official residence on March 14 and wads of half-burnt cash was found. This time, though, there was no involvement of MPs. In absence of a parliamentary motion, then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry and appointed a three-judge panel to conduct an investigation. The committee confirmed the presence of cash at Justice Varma's residence and submitted its report to the CJI. Soon after, Justice Khanna sent the findings to the Prime Minister and the President, recommending initiation of removal proceedings as per the Judges Inquiry Act and Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The government has indicated that it may table the motion for Justice Varma's removal during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament.
