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
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Bribe for Bail' case: Court clerk withdraws pleas for anticipatory bail, quashing of FIR
A court ahlmad (clerk) accused of demanding bribes on behalf of a judicial officer withdrew his pleas from the Delhi High Court on Wednesday — one for anticipatory bail, and another for quashing of the FIR. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the pleas as withdrawn following the withdrawal request. The request comes on the heels of multiple hearings. Further, the Anti-Corruption Bureau(ACB), in its latest status report, indicated the possible involvement of the wife of the accused ahlmad, also a court staffer. On May 16, the ACB had lodged an FIR against the clerk under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Court was then transferred on May 20. Subsequently, the ahlmad filed for anticipatory bail in a Rouse Avenue court, which had rejected the plea on May 22. During the bail hearing, the clerk had argued that the ACB had filed a 'false fabricated FIR' against him, contending that the enforcement agency had 'tried to frame' the Special Judge to 'settle a score with' him. Meanwhile, the prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds that the clerk was a prime offender and was likely to tamper with evidence. It was also argued that a handwritten slip was allegedly provided by him to the complainant, which indicated his involvement in the alleged offence. The Indian Express on May 24 had reported that on January 29 this year, the Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch wrote to the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Justice, and Legislative Affairs, seeking permission to initiate a probe against a Special Judge in the Rouse Avenue Court and his court's ahlmad over allegations of 'demand and acceptance of bribes for granting bail to accused persons.' The request, however, was passed on to the High Court. Even as the HC turned down the request on February 14, saying the ACB did not have 'sufficient material' against the Special Judge, it asked the ACB to continue its investigation. The judge was later transferred from Rouse Avenue Court to another court.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Ordinance on school fees favours private schools, claims AAP
New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on Wednesday alleged that BJP-led Delhi govt's ordinance on regulating fee hikes favours private schools and decried it as an attempt to "fool" parents. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now There was no immediate reaction from the ruling BJP to the allegations. On Tuesday, Delhi Cabinet approved an ordinance empowering the govt to impose fines up to Rs 10 lakh on private schools for violating fee norms and even revoke their right to propose fee revisions. Education minister Ashish Sood said the cabinet, chaired by chief minister Rekha Gupta, approved the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Ordinance, 2025, which will be sent for presidential assent through the lieutenant governor. AAP Delhi state president Saurabh Bharadwaj alleged that in order to favour private schools, govt brought the ordinance through the backdoor. Calling it an "open" and "blatant" surrender of governance, he said the law is drafted entirely in favour of school management. "Ever since the BJP formed a govt in Delhi, the first session of private schools began with a wave of fee hikes. Parents were left with no choice but to pay," he said. Previously, schools had to seek approval from the Directorate of Education before raising fees. Bharadwaj said, "From April 1, private schools increased fees arbitrarily without approval, and the govt took no action—no rollback or refunds were ordered." Criticising the govt for bypassing public consultation and not bringing the bill before the legislative assembly, he said, "The draft was not made public, was not uploaded online, and no citizen feedback was sought." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Bharadwaj explained the ordinance hands fee-fixing power to school-level committees, whose decisions will be final without govt oversight. These committees include five school members—three teachers, one principal, and one management member—and parents chosen by lottery. He warned the lottery might select uninterested or uninformed parents, giving schools a voting majority.
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
10% Maratha reservation to continue this year, hearing on fresh pleas from July 18
The Maratha reservation issue will once again come under judicial scrutiny, with a newly constituted full bench of the Bombay High Court set to begin hearings on fresh pleas from July 18. However, the 10 per cent reservation in education and government jobs given to the Maratha community will continue this bench, comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge, NJ Jamadar and Sandeep Marne, announced on Wednesday that they would devote half-days, full working days and even some Saturdays - ordinarily court holidays - to complete the hearing hearing pertains to challenges against the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, which grants 10 per cent reservation in education and government jobs to the Maratha community. Under this order, any admission or job appointment made under the SEBC Act remains subject to final court directions. The matter was previously heard by a bench led by then-Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya. However, proceedings halted after his transfer to the Delhi High Court in January. Following this, some students approached the Supreme Court, citing harm to their admission prospects due to the ongoing legal uncertainty. The top court subsequently directed the Bombay High Court to constitute a new full bench, which has now taken Wednesday's hearing, senior advocate Pradeep Sancheti, representing the petitioners, urged the bench to expedite proceedings as the academic admission cycle was underway. He argued that, unlike job appointments, delayed admissions would be harder to rectify, even with the interim order in General Dr Birendra Saraf, appearing for the Maharashtra government, said the state needed more time to respond to the latest petition filed in court. He maintained that the interim order provided adequate safeguards and questioned the urgency shown by the petitioners. He also suggested that the petitioners withdraw the new plea if they were unwilling to allow time for the state to considering the submissions, the bench scheduled the hearing for five weeks SEBC Act, passed on February 20 last year by the Eknath Shinde-led Maharashtra government, followed recommendations by the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) led by retired Justice Sunil Shukre. The commission had concluded that "exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations" warranted reservation for the Maratha community beyond the 50 per cent cap mandated by the Supreme legislation, which came just ahead of the Lok Sabha and assembly elections, sparked a series of public interest litigations and petitions challenging its constitutional validity. Simultaneously, numerous intervention applications have been filed by Maratha organisations defending the reservation and opposing the addition to the reservation issue, petitions have also been filed questioning the legality of Justice Shukre's appointment as chairperson of the Watch
