CLAT-PG answer key row: Delhi HC grants relief to candidates, asks to declare results soon
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court on Friday granted relief to CLAT-PG candidates over alleged discrepancies in the answer key and directed the consortium of NLUs to declare results soon.
A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's decision came over the plea of students in relation to a couple of answers in the key. The court, however, rejected the objection with respect to the declared answer to a third question, and asked the consortium of national law universities to accordingly award marks to the candidates.
The court passed the order while deciding three pleas seeking rectification of errors in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test -PG 2025.
The bench's verdict highlighted the issue of a high fee of ₹1,000 charged by the consortium per question for raising the objection to the provisional answer key, observing there ought to be a "fine balance" between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions.
While comparing the fee charged for objected questions by other organisations, the fees sought by the consortium "appeared to be excessive and disproportionate" but the consortium's concern that it was required to keep frivolous individuals and coaching institutes at bay also did not appear to be "fanciful or imaginative", it added.
The bench, however, expected the consortium to take heed of its observations and take appropriate steps to "avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations".
"It may be advisable for the consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram for his valuable opinion which may be adhered to by it," the bench said.
The court ruled on the correctness of the answers in the answer key after considering each question and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the consortium.
CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in national law universities in the country. CLAT PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024.
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 the consortium.
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
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Justice Varma case: Can't lodge FIR due to judicial order, says Dhankhar
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday said the government of the day is handicapped, as it can't register an FIR because there is a judicial order. Dhankhar's made the remarks in connection with the Justice Yashwant Varma episode. A fire broke out at Varma's residence in the national capital in March when he was a judge in the Delhi High Court, leading to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash from the outhouse. Dhankhar was interacting with a delegation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association here. The four members of the Bar association led by its president Sartej Singh Narula called on the vice-president at the Punjab Raj Bhavan, where Dhankhar arrived on Thursday evening before travelling to Shimla on Friday. Narula later said the matter pertaining to Justice Varma came up during general discussions. According to an official statement issued on Friday evening, the vice-president said, "The government of the day is handicapped. It can't register an FIR because there is a judicial order, which is more than three decades old. "It provides a virtually impregnable cover. Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered. "So I pose a question to myself, in deep pain, worried and concerned -- why was that permission not given? That was the minimum that could have been done at the earliest occasion". He added, "I have raised the issue. If a motion is brought to remove a judge, is that the answer? If a crime was committed, a culpable act shaking the foundations of democracy, why wasn't it punished?" "We have lost more than three months, and the investigation has not even been initiated. Whenever you go to court, they ask why the FIR was delayed. "Does the committee of judges have a constitutional sanction? Does it have statutory sanction? Can its report result in any outcome? Can the report, by itself, be actionable? The Constitution says the mechanism to remove a judge can be initiated either in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha," Dhankhar added. The vice-president said even the president of India or the governors have immunity from prosecution only till the time they are in office. "No other constitutional office enjoys this immunity, and that too while in office," he said. "I hope an FIR is filed," Dhankhar said. "Let us not destroy the idea of democracy. Let us not dilute our ethical standards. Let us not decimate integrity. A very painful incident happened mid-March in Delhi at the residence of a sitting judge. There was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted, and illegal," he added. The incident appeared in the public domain after 6-7 days, he said. "Imagine what would have happened had it not appeared (in public domain). We don't know if it was an isolated incident. Whenever such a cash haul is made, the system has to find out whose money was it. What was the money trail? Where did the loose cash come from? Were big sharks involved? Did the money influence judicial work? All these questions bothered lawyers and common people alike," Dhankhar said. "Let the skeletons come out of the closet. Why was there no FIR? Why has there been no probe," Dhankhar asked. The vice-president added that he was happy that the Bar associations are picking up the issue, which will restore people's confidence. "If you remember the famous case -- Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1957 -- the gap between establishing the truth is sometimes very thin. The distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' is very thin. But this thin distance has to be negotiated by evidence of unimpeachable veracity. "I am not aware as to who is guilty. But one thing is for sure -- a crime of great enormity took place which shook the foundations of the judiciary and democracy. I hope the matter will be addressed," Dhankhar said. On Wednesday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving an impeachment motion against Justice Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". Rijiju told reporters that he has already initiated discussions with all the political parties to bring the motion in Parliament's Monsoon Session starting July 21 against Varma. Although Varma claimed ignorance about the cash discovery, a Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred Varma to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.
NDTV
5 hours ago
- NDTV
"Children Deserve Compassion...": Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta On School Hiring Bouncers
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta condemned school hiring bouncers to intimidate parents and students, emphasizing children deserve compassion, not coercion. New Delhi: Amid "alarming" reports of schools employing bouncers to intimidate parents and students, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Friday asserted that children deserve compassion and not coercion. "There have been alarming reports of schools employing bouncers to intimidate parents and students. Education is a right, not a business." "Our children deserve compassion, not coercion. Schools must remain spaces of learning, values and nation-building," she said. The Delhi government has already announced that it will bring an ordinance to implement the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, to control arbitrary fee hikes by private schools. The chief minister's post on X came a day after the Delhi High Court called out Delhi Public School, Dwarka, for using "bouncers" to block the entry of students in its premises over a fee dispute. Noting such a practice had no place in an institution of learning, Justice Sachin Datta said public shaming and intimidation of a student due to financial default not only constitute mental harassment but also undermine the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi HC grants partial relief to students in CLAT-PG answer key dispute
The Delhi High Court on Friday provided partial relief to candidates who had citing discrepancies in a few questions in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-PG 2025. While disposing of three petitions by students seeking rectification of alleged errors in the answer key, the court ruled in favour of the students in two questions and upheld the Consortium of National Law Universities' (NLUs) stance on a third. It directed the Consortium to revise the scoring accordingly and declare the results. The students had also challenged the fee for raising objections to the provisional answer key — ₹1,000 per question — terming it excessive, and sought a direction to the Consortium to reconsider it. The court observed that there should be a 'fine balance' between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions, and said that its observation should be sufficient for the Consortium to take appropriate steps to 'avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations'. CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in National Law Universities in the country. CLAT-PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024. 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'.
