CLAT 2025: Delhi HC orders Consortium of National Law Universities to revise marksheets, republish final list of selected candidates.
The
Delhi High Court
on Wednesday asked the
Consortium of National Law Universities
to revise marksheets, republish final list of selected candidates.
Several pleas were filed in different high courts alleging that several questions in the undergraduate exam were wrong. Petitions were also filed challenging the
CLAT results
for admissions in PG courses.
In February, the
Supreme Court
had transferred all the petitions against the 2025
CLAT
results from various high courts to the
Delhi
High Court for a "consistent adjudication".
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Vatican reveals the reason for Pope Francis' death
The Economic Times
Undo
In February, the Supreme Court had transferred all the petitions against the 2025 CLAT results from various high courts to the Delhi High Court for a "consistent adjudication".
On December 20, 2024, a Delhi High Court single judge had directed the consortium to revise the result of CLAT-2025 over the errors in the answer key.
Live Events
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.
While the aspirants challenged the single judge's order which refused his prayer over the other two questions, the consortium moved against the single 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
41 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court grants interim protection from arrest to MP Journalist alleging police assault
The Supreme Court on Monday directed two Madhya Pradesh-based journalists, who have accused the Bhind superintendent of police and other officers of custodial assault and harassment, to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for relief. The court granted them interim protection from arrest for two weeks to allow time to file their plea. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan told the petitioners—Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan—that it was not inclined to entertain their plea under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, noting the gravity of the allegations, the bench permitted them to seek remedy before the High Court. 'We are not entertaining the plea. However, looking at the allegations, we permit the petitioners to move the concerned high court within two weeks from today. Till the time the petitioners move high court …the petitioners shall not be arrested,' Justice Mishra said. The journalists have alleged that they were targeted by police due to their reporting on alleged corruption related to sand mining. In their plea, they sought protection from coercive action by the MP Police and claimed they feared for their lives. The petition also accused a senior police officer and his subordinates of kidnapping, custodial assault, and using casteist slurs against them. The bench previously questioned why the Bhind superintendent of police had not been made a party to the petition. "It is very easy to say all kinds of things against an IPS officer without making him a party. Whatever comes to your mind, just put it in black and white against the IPS officer," the bench remarked. The court also asked why the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi were named as respondents. The counsel for the journalists said the NHRC had been included because a complaint had been filed there, but agreed to remove it from the petition. On the inclusion of NCT of Delhi, it was submitted that both petitioners are currently residing in the national capital. Meanwhile, on May 28, the Delhi High Court had granted Chouhan interim protection for two months after he claimed that the Bhind SP had threatened him following an alleged assault in his office. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on June 9.
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
A critical test for institutions
The Supreme Court stopped short of instituting an internal probe into the conduct of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, following a March letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat raising issues of jurisdiction, this newspaper reported Monday. The letter reiterated the process as referred to by Rajya Sabha chairperson and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar previously in February in Parliament — that only Parliament and the President have the jurisdiction to proceed against the judge, who is in the dock for alleged hate speech against Muslims delivered in December 2024. Even as the Supreme Court took note of that speech, a group of 55 opposition MPs filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics'. As per the law, the removal of a high court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must go through Parliament. The chairperson will now have to decide on the admissibility of the motion and if an inquiry needs to be held. The Rajya Sabha chairperson, who has been vocal about judicial integrity and institutional probity, should ensure that the complaint against the judge is now processed in a transparent manner and concluded before the judicial officer retires in April next year. A timely closure in the matter is necessary to ensure that there is no reputational damage to the judiciary, Parliament, or the concerned judge, in case he is found innocent of the alleged hate speech. Interestingly, while Justice Yadav, reportedly, regretted his conduct and assured the Supreme Court collegium that he will render a public apology in a closed-door meeting with it in December, he has not issued one and instead defended his speech, delivered in a meeting of Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists in Prayagraj, as reflecting India's cultural ethos. A judge is bound by oath to protect constitutional values, not articulate majoritarian sentiments or populist views, even if they are part of some perceived cultural ethos. Any deviation is a violation of the oath and compromises the integrity of the judiciary. The Justice Yadav case presents a critical test. It is not merely about the conduct of one judge but will have wider implications for the principle of separation of powers and commitment of public institutions to constitutional ideals. How this matter is now handled by the Rajya Sabha will set an important precedent for the future of India's democratic institutions.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
If It Happened There: Donald Trump sends central troops to quell protests in opposition-ruled California
Protesters confront police on the 101 Freeway near the Metropolitan Detention Center of downtown Los Angeles, Sunday, June 8, 2025, following last night's immigration raid protest. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) Note: The following piece is inspired by Joshua Keating's If It Happened There which uses tropes and tones normally used by American media to describe events in other countries. The facts presented deal with as much exactitude and accuracy as an American media outlets' reporting about a foreign country. Los Angeles, Mexican for the city of angels, is home to Hollywood – America's answer to Bollywood – and a city where starstruck aspirants come with the dream of being immortalised on the silver screen. Yet, the city, which falls under America-administered California, an opposition state which overwhelmingly voted for Mr Donald Trump 's rival from the Democratic Party, Ms Kamala Harris, soon came to resemble a warzone. Mr Trump – known for strongman-like tendencies like Mr Putin and Mr Jinping – sent in over 2,000 National Guard troops, dressed like Stormtroopers, to quell a popular uprising sparked by workplace raids on labourers who Mr Trump's officials claim are 'illegals' working in America without papers. It was, as one expert put it, a prime example of authoritarian overreach that has become a feature of American autocracy since Mr Trump's white nationalist Republican Party came to power in the last election. The flashpoint began in LA's Fashion District, where federal immigration agents—known locally as ICE—raided a garment factory, with similar operations in numerous surrounding areas. The raid at a Home Depot – a retail franchise with numerous outlets across the country – saw violent clashes between protesters, including unionists and local residents. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Among the arrested was Mr David Huerta, a unionist, who eyewitnesses say was zip-tied and dragged away near the Metropolitan Detention Centre – which has overnight come to resemble a heavily guarded fortress. The situation grew increasingly volatile, coming to resemble a modern-day version of A Song of Ice and Fire – a popular series of books – which inspired the incest-drama Game of Thrones. Driverless Waymo cars – a company owned by Google, often accused of monopolising the internet to further America's imperial power – were set ablaze in a powerful demonstration of the working-class revolution against Silicon Valley's technocratic regime. While California's duly elected leaders – progressive Democrat Governor Mr Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Ms Karen Bass – objected, 2,000 National Guard troops hit hotspots near downtown Los Angeles. Local protest organisers – many embedded with immigrant rights groups – were illegally dragged away. Teenagers and older women with placards were violently attacked as federal officials justified the harsh measures, claiming they were 'suspected participants.' A Distraction? Some commentators even wondered if Mr Trump's heavy-handed action might be a ruse to distract from his recent feud with Mr Elon Musk, a technocrat and the world's richest man who funded Mr Trump's return to the White House with both his personal wealth and by buying the social media platform named X – formerly known as Twitter – to help spread canards that could return Mr Trump to the White House. Mr Trump, also a former avid user of Twitter who was banned from the platform earlier and opened his own rival Truth Social, had a spat with Mr Musk over a finance bill that the American President likes to call the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' and which Mr Musk called fiscal suicide. The fallout included a physical altercation with Mr Trump's tariff honcho, Mr Scott Bessent, whose attempt at a parliamentary rebuttal ostensibly left Mr Musk with a black eye. Mr Musk – known for using powerful drugs like ketamine – retaliated by calling Mr Trump some unprintable names and even claiming that the American President's name was present in the Epstein Files. The Epstein Files, incidentally, refer to a litany of famous celebrities – from both sides of the political aisle, including Republicans and Democrats – who visited Mr Epstein's island where they allegedly participated in peccadilloes involving underage individuals without their consent. Protesters take cover behind chairs near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles, Sunday, June 8, 2025, following last night's immigration raid protest. (AP Photo/Eric Thayer) Mr Musk – who until recently ran a government department that looked at cutting fiscal waste – is the first member of Mr Trump's new team to have a public falling out. Unlike the last administration, where many members including the then Vice President Mr Mike Pence stood up to Mr Trump, the new cabinet is full of individuals whose first claim to fame is complete fealty to Mr Trump. This includes Ms Kristi Noem, the head of Homeland Security, Ms Linda McMahon, the Secretary of Education, former Fox News host Mr Pete Hegseth who is now the Secretary of Defence, and the current Vice President, Mr JD Vance, who once called Mr Trump 'cultural heroin' and compared him to Adolf Hitler. In his second term, Mr Trump has eschewed any pretence of adhering to the US Constitution, whether its quelling dissent in institutes of higher education, illegally deporting American citizens, or accepting expensive gifts from foreign nations. Mr Trump's actions might not just affect residents of America-administered California or even just Americans, given the country's overstated power over the rest of the world. The new regime under Mr Trump has taken sweeping decisions to target its own population, deport legal citizens, silence dissent, and punish anyone perceived to be disloyal, while the courts – once heralded as the guardians of the Constitution – mutely watch on. Questions must be raised as to whether a country like the United States of America is a fit choice for global events, like the next football World Cup – set to be held in 2026 – when it can't even adhere to the basic norms that citizens of democracies take for granted.
