Delhi HC directs NLU Consortium to release revised CLAT 2025 UG results in 4 wks
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU) to publish a revised undergraduate (UG) result list for the 2025 Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), within four weeks.
The court on Wednesday was hearing petitions that questioned procedural lapses in the conduct of CLAT-2025 on December 1, 2024, and alleged errors in the answer key.
'We have acceded to certain objections made by the candidates and certain objections have been turned down. Those who have raised the objections beyond the window period, we have turned them down. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the respondents (consortium of NLU's) to revise the marksheet and renotify the final list of candidates within four weeks,' a bench comprising chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela said while pronouncing the verdict, the details of which is yet to be released.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, and comprising justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, had on February 6 transferred petitions pending before multiple high courts — including those of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Mumbai, Punjab and Haryana — to the Delhi High Court, in order to avoid conflicting rulings and streamline the proceedings.
Also Read: Delhi HC directs NLU Consortium to announce revised CLAT 2025 results
The results published by the Consortium on December 7 were scrutinised, particularly after Delhi high court's December 20, 2024, passed in a plea filed by a CLAT aspirant, challenging the official answer key. The single judge had found that the answers to two questions in the exam were incorrect and held that ignoring such errors would result in injustice to the candidates.
While the Consortium appealed against the single judge's order, the petitioner also challenged the decision before the division bench of the Delhi high court, arguing that similar discrepancies existed in three additional questions. The division bench, on December 24, 2024, refused to pass any interim relief, being prima facie in agreement with the single judge's decision.
Also Read: SC transfers all CLAT 2025 challenges to Delhi HC for centralised adjudication
Beyond Delhi, several candidates approached various high courts raising concerns over procedural lapses in the conduct of CLAT-2025, including alleged errors in the answer key, excessive fees for challenging incorrect answers, and procedural irregularities in both the undergraduate and postgraduate entrance tests.
The Consortium represented by senior advocate Raj Shekhar Rao had submitted that the court could only interfere with the result if the answers were 'palpably' 'ex facie' and 'demonstrably wrong.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
44 minutes ago
- Hans India
HRF condemns AP's10-hour workday bill
Visakhapatnam: The Human Rights Forum (HRF) condemned the recent assent by the Andhra Pradesh Cabinet to the AP Factories Amendment Bill, 2025 that seeks to impose a 10-hour work day. This, the HRF representatives opine, is an irresponsible and deliberate assault on labour rights and dignity. 'We demand its immediate and unconditional withdrawal. This move, sought to be brought about through an amendment to The Factories Act, 1948, is no 'reform' but a grotesque regression. It is plainly exploitative and treats with contempt decades of labour struggles that have advocated for and attained a humane and sustainable work environment,' mentioned HRF AP state general secretary Y Rajesh and HRF AP and TG coordination committee member VS Krishna. These rights have a long and glorious history, wrested through generations of hard-fought battles led by the working class and progressive movements. The state government now seeks to dismantle these rights so as to benefit corporate interests, they pointed out. The eight-hour work day is the cornerstone of modern labour rights. The HRF recalled the historic legacy of BR Ambedkar who played a decisive role in institutionalising the eight-hour workday. This is now being sought to be rolled back. Extending the maximum daily working hours amounts to entrenching exploitation and a roll-back of hard-won labour safeguards. It normalises overwork, erodes the right to rest and leisure and strips away dignity from labour. This measure constitutes a fundamental breach of the government's constitutional obligations, they emphasised. HRF calls upon all democratic forces to oppose this devious move.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
HRF condemns AP's 10-hour workday bill
Visakhapatnam: The Human Rights Forum (HRF) condemned the recent assent by the Andhra Pradesh Cabinet to the AP Factories Amendment Bill, 2025 that seeks to impose a 10-hour work day. This, the HRF representatives opine, is an irresponsible and deliberate assault on labour rights and dignity. 'We demand its immediate and unconditional withdrawal. This move, sought to be brought about through an amendment to The Factories Act, 1948, is no 'reform' but a grotesque regression. It is plainly exploitative and treats with contempt decades of labour struggles that have advocated for and attained a humane and sustainable work environment,' mentioned HRF AP state general secretary Y Rajesh and HRF AP and TG coordination committee member VS Krishna. These rights have a long and glorious history, wrested through generations of hard-fought battles led by the working class and progressive movements. The state government now seeks to dismantle these rights so as to benefit corporate interests, they pointed out. The eight-hour work day is the cornerstone of modern labour rights. The HRF recalled the historic legacy of BR Ambedkar who played a decisive role in institutionalising the eight-hour workday. This is now being sought to be rolled back. Extending the maximum daily working hours amounts to entrenching exploitation and a roll-back of hard-won labour safeguards. It normalises overwork, erodes the right to rest and leisure and strips away dignity from labour. This measure constitutes a fundamental breach of the government's constitutional obligations, they emphasised. HRF calls upon all democratic forcesto oppose this devious move.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
No compromise on women's dignity: SC tells lawyer who abused judge
The judiciary cannot compromise when it comes to the safety and dignity of women judges, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, refusing to interfere with the conviction and 18-month jail sentence of a Delhi-based lawyer who verbally abused and threatened a woman judicial officer in court. 'There can be no leniency in ensuring a safe workplace for women judges…Most of the judicial officers in Delhi today are women. They must feel safe at their place of work,' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan emphasised. Rejecting an appeal by advocate Sanjay Rathore, the bench added: 'They (women judges) won't be able to function if someone like him gets High Court is right.' The top court's decision comes weeks after the Delhi High Court delivered a scathing verdict, describing Rathore's conduct as 'an assault on justice itself' . The trial court had originally sentenced Rathore to a total of two years' imprisonment for using gendered abuse against a woman magistrate in 2015, but the high court reduced the term to 18 months. Rathore had already undergone six months in jail by the time his appeal was heard in the Supreme Court. His lawyer argued that the incident was a 'spur-of-the-moment' outburst and that further incarceration would be harsh. But the top court remained unmoved. 'Your sentence has already been reduced to 18 months. We can't bring it down. Your matter was duly dealt with by the high court and a strong judgment was issued. We have to ensure the safety of women judicial officers,' the bench said during the hearing. The court also took note of the testimony given under oath by the woman magistrate, who corroborated the charges. 'Look at the kind of language you have used. How will judges work if we entertain your petition?' the bench asked. In its brief order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted Rathore two weeks to surrender. The case dates back to October 2015, when Rathore, aggrieved by an adjournment in his case that was passed in his absence, verbally abused a woman magistrate in Karkardooma court, including using gender-specific slurs. The incident prompted the judicial officer to lodge an FIR at Farsh Bazar police station. In 2023, a trial court found Rathore guilty under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code -- 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) -- and sentenced him to two years in jail. The high court, while upholding the conviction in May 2025, modified the sentence to 18 months. In her May 26 judgment, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the high court minced no words in rejecting Rathore's plea for leniency. She observed that 'the act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings… attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity.' Justice Sharma emphasised that Rathore, being an officer of the court, was expected to uphold its dignity, not undermine it. 'This is not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself where a judge… became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.' The judgment went on to highlight the larger systemic issue: 'Any act that seeks to threaten or intimidate a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability. To trivialise such conduct under the garb of emotional outburst or momentary lapse is to reflect a patriarchal mindset — one that struggles to respect women in authority and seeks to normalise the unacceptable. This cannot be permitted. Not in law. Not in court.' Calling the woman magistrate's experience a reflection of 'a mindset where even women in empowered roles are not seen as immune from humiliation or indignity,' the high court warned that no judicial officer, especially women at the district level who form the 'backbone of our justice delivery system,' should ever feel unsupported or unsafe. 'If a woman holding judicial office is made to feel that her authority is conditional on the civility or restraint of others, the very foundation of judicial independence would get shaken,' Justice Sharma wrote.
