SC pulls up NLU consortium over errors in CLAT 2025; seeks government's response
The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the consortium of National 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 bench noted that in some questions, the answer key issued by the consortium was contrary to past SC judgments. (File photo)
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
NDA govt has delivered significant changes in 1 1 years, will do more: PM Modi
PM Modi (File Photo) NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi Monday marked the milestone of him completing 11 years in office, saying the NDA govt, in its three terms, had delivered significant changes, and promising to do more in the rest of his current tenure. "We are proud of our collective success but at the same time, we look ahead with hope, confidence and a renewed resolve to build a Viksit Bharat," he posted on X. Modi shared a series of hashtags and social media links, which - while focusing on his govt's initiatives - also represented a pitch for OBCs, tribals, Dalits and women. A link shared by him noted that 60% of Union ministers were from the SC, ST and OBC categories, a message aimed at burnishing the social justice credentials of his govt amid attempts by opposition parties to paint it as working against their interests. This is the highest representation of these groups in the Union Council of Ministers, it added. He also said that the NDA govt had redefined the concept of "women-led development". Modi also asserted that under the 11 years of his govt, India had not just become the fastest-growing major economy, but was also a key global voice on pressing issues like climate action and digital innovation. Home minister Amit Shah hailed Modi govt's 11 years as a "golden period" in public service, while defence minister Rajnath Singh asserted that India stood well-equipped and unwavering in its resolve to safeguard its territorial integrity, as Union ministers praised the PM's leadership. Shah hails Modi govt's 11 years as 'golden period' | page 13 Modi also asserted that under the 11 years of his govt, India had not just become the fastest-growing major economy, but was also a key global voice on pressing issues like climate action and digital innovation. Home minister Amit Shah hailed Modi govt's 11 years as a "golden period" in public service, while defence minister Rajnath Singh asserted that India stood well-equipped and unwavering in its resolve to safeguard its territorial integrity, as Union ministers praised the PM's leadership. Shah said significant milestones were achieved in economic revival, cultural pride and national security during the 11 years of the Narendra Modi govt. Shah said that not only was Naxalism on the wane and peace established in J&K and the northeast, but also "India now responds to terrorist attacks by striking the terror perpetrators in their own backyard".
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Violates fundamental rights': SC sets aside narco test order
A narco-analysis test cannot be conducted on an accused person without their consent, and the results of such tests cannot form the sole basis of conviction in a criminal case, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Emphasising that the pursuit of modern investigative tools cannot override fundamental constitutional protections, the top court underscored that involuntary narco tests infringe upon the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PB Varale set aside a 2023 Patna high court order that had accepted an investigating officer's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused and witnesses in a dowry harassment case linked to the disappearance of a woman. 'We have no doubt that the impugned order cannot be sustained,' said the bench said, adding that 'under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law.' The court held that the high court erred in accepting the submission of the police for administering the test, noting that it contravened the law laid down in the landmark 2010 ruling in Selvi vs State of Karnataka, where a three-judge bench had declared such techniques unconstitutional if done without consent. 'Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution are non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions…Involuntary administration of narco-analysis and similar tests is in contravention of the protection given by Article 20(3)...The results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as material evidence in the eyes of the law,' noted the bench. To be sure, a narco-analysis test is a forensic interrogation technique in which a suspect is injected with a psychoactive drug to lower their inhibitions and suppress their reasoning ability, in an attempt to extract information, they might otherwise withhold. The bench further stated that permitting such tests without consent would breach a person's right to privacy and amount to a disproportionate exercise of police powers. The apex court also rejected the state's argument that 'modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour,' saying such measures must never come at the cost of constitutional guarantees. 'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21,' it said. The Court also clarified that a voluntary narco-analysis test, undertaken at an appropriate stage and with adequate safeguards, may be permissible. However, the outcome of such tests, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. 'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction,' held the court, referring to the evidentiary value of discoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The third key issue addressed in the judgment was whether an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo a narco-analysis test voluntarily. As highlighted by senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who assisted the bench as amicus curiae, the bench noted conflicting views from different high courts, including a Rajasthan high court ruling which held that the accused could seek such a test under their right to lead evidence. Rejecting that interpretation, the bench held: 'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature... Such a right is not absolute.' Simultaneously, the bench acknowledged that an accused may move an application seeking a voluntary narco test during trial, and if such a plea is made, the concerned court must carefully assess the totality of circumstances, including free consent and necessary safeguards, before allowing the test. 'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage... However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test,' the judgment clarified. Concluding, the apex court said that the Patna high court's decision to allow narco-analysis at the bail stage was not only premature but outside the scope of what a court considers while adjudicating a bail application. 'It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques,' it added.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi: HC declines immediate stay on Batla House demolitions
The Delhi high court on Monday declined to immediately stay the demolition of homes and establishments in Batla House, scheduled for June 11 by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The court, however, agreed to hear the matter on the day of the demolition -- Wednesday -- in the morning. The case stems from a public interest litigation filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan, who challenged DDA's demolition notices served to properties in Khasra No. 283, arguing that these fall under the 2019 PM-UDAY scheme and not in the unauthorised zone (Khasra No. 279) flagged by DDA. A division bench of justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia initially hesitated to take up the plea, since justice Karia had earlier in the day granted interim relief to three similarly placed residents in a related matter. 'If he [Justice Karia] has already passed orders, how can he now sit in the division bench?' justice Kathpalia remarked. Eventually, justice Kathpalia agreed to hear the matter in a single-judge capacity on June 11, after Khan's counsel submitted that the demolition drive was scheduled to begin that day. '11th June morning, I will take up this matter. I will pass the order after hearing the parties,' the judge said. However, he declined petitioner counsel Salman Khurshid's request to direct the DDA to defer action until Wednesday, noting that the Supreme Court had already refused to stay the demolition. 'I'm not going to say this. The Supreme Court has already declined,' he said. The DDA's notices, issued on May 26, followed the Supreme Court's May 7 order directing the removal of unauthorised structures outside regularised colonies under PM-UDAY. Marked with red Xs, the notices gave occupants 15 days to vacate before demolitions begin on June 11. On June 2, the Supreme Court also declined to halt demolitions in response to petitions by over 40 residents, instead agreeing to hear the matter after its summer recess. Meanwhile, the Delhi high court granted interim relief to a property in Khasra No. 283 on June 4. In Monday's plea, argued by advocate Fahad Khan on behalf of Khan, it was reiterated that the affected properties fall within Khasra No. 283 — not Khasra No. 279 — and are covered under the 2019 PM-UDAY scheme for regularisation of unauthorised colonies. The DDA opposed the petition, stating that the Supreme Court had already declined relief on June 2 and that a protection order could not be issued in a public interest litigation. The court's order noted procedural complexities and listed the matter for June 11: 'Two issues arise... One of us has already granted interim protection to the present petitioners. That being so, it needs to be examined whether this bench can deal with the present plea. Second, counsel for DDA contends that the Supreme Court has already declined protection…'
