CLAT UG 2025: SC 'anguished' over NLU consortium 'casual manner' to frame questions
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed anguish over the "casual manner" in which the Consortium of National Law Universities was framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test . CLAT UG 2025: SC 'anguished' over NLU consortium 'casual manner' to frame questions
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, which pointed out mistakes related to some of the questions in the CLAT UG-2025, was hearing a plea filed by an aspirant challenging the Delhi High Court's April 23 verdict.
The high court had previously directed the consortium to revise the marksheets and republish the final list of selected candidates of CLAT UG-2025 within four weeks.
"At the outset, we must express our anguish at the casual manner in which the respondent number one has been framing the questions for the CLAT examination which involves the career aspirations of lakhs of students in the country," the top court said.
The CLAT 2025 for admissions to five-year law courses in national law universities was held on December 1 last year and the results were declared on December 7.
The petitioner claimed being aggrieved by the high court verdict directing revision of marksheets.
The top court said in matters of academia, court was always "very slow" in interfering as it did not possess the expertise in such issues.
"When academicians themselves err in such a manner which affects the careers of lakhs of students, the court is left with no other option," it added.
The bench said it was clear from the high court's verdict that several questions were found not suitable and, therefore, the high court passed an order in relation to the several questions.
The apex court dealt with six questions in the matter.
On one of the questions over environmental issues, the bench referred to the answer key which said the fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural resources was only upon the state.
"It is totally wrong," the bench said, "time and again, the apex court has emphasised the duty of the state as well as the citizens to preserve and protect the natural resources".
It directed the consortium to give a positive marking to all such candidates who chose option C and D in the answer key.
The bench said those who chose option A and B, would be marked negatively.
The apex court further set aside the high court's direction for deleting another question and ordered the consortium to give marks to those who chose option B in the answer key.
The bench was in agreement with the high court on another question and said C was the correct option.
On two more questions, the bench observed the consortium on its own deleted one of them.
The top court found "not much difference between the two" and ordered deletion of the other.
Two more questions one entailing a detailed mathematical analysis were ordered to be deleted.
The bench referred to its June 2018 order in another case highlighting improper conduct of CLAT 2018.
In the judgement, it said, the top court directed the Centre to appoint a committee to look into the issue and take remedial measures including penal action, if any, against the body entrusted with the task.
Though the judgement came in June 2018, it noted, the Centre took no steps.
The bench then issued a notice to the Centre for its response and posted the matter on May 16.
During the hearing, the bench asked why a permanent mechanism for conducting CLAT did not exist.
On April 30, the apex court stayed the high court verdict directing the consortium to revise the marksheets and republish the final list of selected candidates of CLAT UG-2025 within four weeks.
Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts, alleging errors in the questions but on February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all cases to the Delhi High Court for a "consistent adjudication" after the Consortium of National Law Universities filed transfer petitions.
On December 20, 2024, a Delhi High Court single judge bench directed the consortium to revise the result of CLAT-2025 over the errors in the answer key and then following a challenge the court's division bench on April 23 accepted certain objections of the candidates while rejecting some of them.
The high court is yet to hear pleas challenging the questions of CLAT PG-2025.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
41 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Cash discovery row: Justice Varma must quit to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
NEW DELHI: Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the Houses, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
New Delhi: Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Belly Fat Removal Without Surgery? The Cost Might Surprise You (See Prices) Belly Fat Removal | Search Ads Undo But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." Live Events A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
