Supreme Court asks why permanent mechanism cannot be put in place to conduct CLAT like NEET
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 7, 2025), expressing strong displeasure at 'error-riddled questions' in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025, voiced the need for a 'permanent mechanism' for conducting the annual law entrance examination, similar to the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET) for medical admissions.
The National Testing Agency (NTA) conducts NEET, while CLAT, a national-level entrance exam for undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes offered by 24 National Law Universities (NLUs), is currently organised by the Consortium of National Law Universities (CNLU), with member universities conducting it on a rotational basis. The questions are purportedly framed by senior academicians in the legal field.
'But is this the sort of Consortium you have? With all these learned Vice-Chancellors sitting together, calling themselves academicians of the highest repute… Why don't you have a permanent mechanism like in the NEET? CLAT involves the career aspirations of lakhs of students across the country,' a Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih observed.
The court conveyed its anguish at the 'casual manner' in which the CNLU had framed questions for CLAT 2025. Pointing to a question regarding responsibility for protecting natural resources, Justice Gavai said the suggested answer, that the state held sole responsibility, was 'totally wrong.' 'It is the state as well as the citizens. We have said this in several of our judgments,' the judge noted.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Ministry of Education (formerly Ministry of Human Resource Development) regarding the persistent for years problems affecting CLAT.
The Bench highlighted that neither the Centre nor the Bar Council of India (BCI) had implemented remedial measures following a 2018 Supreme Court judgment that had flagged numerous issues with CLAT. Among noted errors were included inadequate arrangements, the yearly rotation of monitoring responsibilities among different universities, and excessive examination fees. The court in 2018 had directed the Centre to appoint a committee to investigate these issues and recommend corrective actions, including potential penal measures against CLAT organisers.
The current legal dispute had delayed the CLAT 2025 counselling process, originally scheduled to commence on December 9, 2024.
The hearing stemmed from a petition by Siddhi Sandeep Ladda, who secured All India Rank 22 with Set A paper of the exam. Ms. Ladda challenged a Delhi High Court order of April 23, 2025, which had directed a revision and republication of the CLAT merit list within four weeks due to erroneous questions and answer keys. Ms. Ladda contended that the High Court's order would disrupt the level playing field, as students who received other exam sets might be unfairly awarded grace marks.
During the hearing, the Justice Gavai Bench itself identified six erroneous questions in the CLAT 2025 paper. The apex court subsequently awarded marks to students for attempts at certain questions while deleting others.
Furthermore, the court took suo motu cognisance of a petition filed by the late legal academician, Professor Shamnad Basheer. Prof. Basheer had consistently highlighted recurrent mistakes in CLAT question papers and had advocated for an 'independent, professional and permanent body' to conduct the examination.
The Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing in the matter for Friday, May 9, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday (June 6, 2025) in cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. Also Read | Federal judge blocks DOGE from accessing Social Security personal information for now The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The court's conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in the first Supreme Court appeals involving DOGE. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The DOGE victories come amid a messy breakup between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Mr. Musk departed from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the President to be impeached. The future of DOGE's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. In one case, the High Court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of DOGE mishandling personal information. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court's action creates 'grave privacy risks' for millions of Americans by giving 'unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson's opinion and Justice Elena Kagan said she also would have ruled against the administration. The Trump administration says DOGE needs the access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a ' Ponzi scheme ' and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The plaintiffs called the high court's order 'a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people." The White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with about 200 lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. In the other DOGE order handed down Friday, the justices extended a pause on orders that would require the team to publicly disclose information about its operations, as part of a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that DOGE, which has been central to Trump's push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Trump administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body aimed at government cost-cutting, which would make it exempt from requests for documents under FOIA. The justices did not decide that issue Friday, but the conservative majority held that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents be turned over to CREW. (AP) NSD NSD
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Interview: If Marathas continue to ask for reservation under OBC category, we will fight it, says Chhagan Bhujbal
Maharashtra OBC leader Chhagan Bhujbal, who was recently inducted in the Maharashtra Cabinet, days after he had openly expressed dissent against his leader and Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar for keeping him out of the cabinet, spoke to The Hindu in an elaborate, sit-down interview . From the recent Supreme Court verdict on Maharashtra local body elections, to the OBC- Maratha reservation tussle, from the internal discussion within the party about his political prospects to the anger for being denied a Cabinet berth, from the Thackerays to the Pawars; and calling the Government's own OBC Commission report a 'sham', he spoke candidly on several issues. Here are the excerpts of the interview. Also read | Chhagan Bhujbal slams Banthia panel report on OBCs How do you see the Supreme Court's recent order asking for local body elections to be held as per the law for OBC reservation, prior to the 2022 Banthia Commission report? We are very happy that we got justice from the Supreme Court. When the Mandal Commission recommendations were accepted, people went to the Supreme Court. Then, a nine-judge bench had given a verdict. That is the final verdict. Afterall, the Supreme Court is supreme. (referring to the Indra Sawhney verdict) The Supreme Court will look into the Banthia Commission report only later now. The Banthia Commission report was submitted in a hurry. Within one month, is it possible that sitting at home, sitting in air-conditioned places, can you have the caste census all over Maharashtra? For example, I will tell you. Gaikwad is a surname. When the Commission was going through the electoral rolls, the officers marked 'Gaikwad' as Maratha. But Gaikwad is an SC too, an OBC too, even a Mali community member. I don't agree with the Banthia Commission report, but because, at that time, there was the Supreme Court which was sitting on our State Government's head, we had to submit that report. I had raised the problems about the Commission report with Uddhav Thackeray then, as he was the Chief Minister. He had said that the elections to 92 local bodies had to be conducted with zero OBC reservation. If we took this up, then it will create problems for other local body elections too. Will you take back the report in that case? It doesn't matter. Till then, my election will be done [referring to the local body elections[ and we will fight it out thoroughly. The nine-judge judgment of the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case is already there. Now, when the case continues, it will take years together. And, by that time, as the Prime Minister has declared, there will be a caste census. With the caste census, it will be crystal clear. How will the caste census affect the OBC politics in Maharashtra? OBCs have played a prominent role in politics not just in Maharashtra, but also in U.P., in Bihar, in Tamil Nadu, in Karnataka, in Telangana. After 1931, there has been no caste census. This has been a long-pending demand. We have been cheated once by the Congress in 2010, when Pranab Mukherjee had assented to caste census after all the OBC leaders had come together in the House. In Maharashtra, the Marathas too want a slice of the OBC quota. I, Chhagan Bhujbal, will fight this tooth-and-nail. Our house is already full. OBC is not a caste. It is a class. There are many small groups in it. There is no space in our house. So we are telling the Marathas, don't come here. You have another house, please go there. If they still continue to ask for reservation under the OBC category, we are ready. We will fight it. Even they won't get anything in that case. 60% MLAs are Marathas, 60% Ministers are Marathas. The Chief Ministers have been Marathas. The banks are with them, the milk co-operatives, the sugar co-operatives are with them. The district bodies are with them. And they still want reservation from the OBC quota. So far, the demand for Maratha reservation has come up thrice. And all the three times, I supported them. But I will fight it if they want reservation from the OBC quota. Also, Manoj Jarange Patil has been responsible for creating a rift between the OBCs and the Marathas. He has disturbed the social fabric. It is being said that Chhagan Bhujbal has been brought in the cabinet due to the intervention of CM Devendra Fadnavis, for OBC votebank in the upcoming local body elections. I have been in politics for several decades now. And every time I was given an opportunity from being a Mayor to becoming the Deputy Chief Minister, it was not because I was an OBC. How can you say that now? Yes, my induction will help the Mahayuti in the coming elections. Devendra Fadnavis had insisted in December as well, that I should be in Cabinet. But Ajit dada listened only now. At that time, he did not listen. The fact is also that I am the Minister of Ajit Pawar. It is up to him to decide who he should include in the cabinet. Do we say that there is an uneasy truce between Ajit Pawar and Chhagan Bhujbal now? I am one of the founder members of NCP, along with Sharad Pawar. All of a sudden, I was thrown out. I was upset. I stuck with the party even when the Congress had offered me the Chief Minister's position at one point. Otherwise I would have been there in Vilasrao Deshmukh's place. And yet, the kind of treatment which was given to me this time was not appropriate. I was shocked. Do you foresee yourself going to the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha? Of course, I want to go. I have been in State politics for 40 years now. I had requested my party to send me to the Parliament. Now, once everything settles here, I will definitely ask them to let me go. Do you see the Pawar uncle-nephew duo coming together again? I have worked with Balasaheb Thackeray for 25 years. I have worked with Sharad Pawar for decades. I have seen the affection Balasaheb had for Raj Thackeray. I have seen Ajit grow under the tutelage of Sharad Pawar. It is hurtful when families split. I will be very happy if the Thackerays [Uddhav and Raj] reunite and the Pawars come together. Who wants to see a rift in the family? But it is our wishful thinking. I don't think it will happen.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
India, U.S. trade talks extended as deadline looms for interim deal, sources say
Trade talks between Indian and U.S. officials have been extended into next week as both sides seek consensus on tariff cuts in the farming and auto sectors, aiming to finalise an interim deal before a July 9 deadline, government sources said. A U.S. delegation led by senior officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) held two days of discussions in the national capital with trade officials headed by chief negotiator Rajesh Agrawal, the sources said. Also Read | India-U.S. trade deal in 'not too distant future': U.S. Commerce Secretary Lutnick "The two countries are actively engaged in focused discussions to facilitate greater market access, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, enhance supply chain resilience and integration," one Indian government official with direct knowledge of the talks, said. Negotiators, who had initially aimed to wrap up talks by Friday, will now continue discussions on Monday and Tuesday to resolve outstanding differences, a second official said. U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi had agreed in February to conclude a bilateral trade pact by fall 2025 and more than double trade to $500 billion by 2030. The current talks are part of efforts to hammer out a limited trade agreement that could lead the Trump administration to revoke 26% reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods - tariffs that have been paused along with those on several other U.S. trading partners for 90 days, the second official said. "Many Indian exporters have held back shipments to the U.S. in the last two weeks, fearing cargos may not reach before the July 9 deadline,' the official added. India's exports to the U.S. jumped nearly 28% year-on-year to $37.7 billion in the January–April period, driven by front-loading of shipments ahead of tariff hikes in April, while imports rose to $14.4 billion, widening the trade surplus in India's favour, according to US government data. Centre approved a licence for Elon Musk's Starlink to launch commercial operations, ignoring his public spat with Mr. Trump, Reuters reported on Friday. India is opposing U.S. demands to open up its agricultural and dairy markets, another Indian official said, citing the impact on millions of poor farmers who cannot compete with heavily subsidised American products. Indian officials have also made it clear New Delhi could pursue its complaint at the World Trade Organisation against the U.S. tariff hikes on steel and aluminium, while aiming to work out a bilateral agreement, the source added.
