Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court direction to revise CLAT-UG 2025 merit list
The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed the Delhi High Court order asking the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the marksheets, and republish the final list of selected candidates of CLAT-UG 2025 within four weeks.
A bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition challenging the April 23 High Court order.
The HC Division Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and T R Gedela, had concluded that there were errors in B, C, and D set of question papers. It said, 'Since the error has occurred on the part of the respondent/Consortium itself, while publishing Sets 'B', 'C' & 'D' of question papers, no fault can be found with the candidates for giving or not giving correct or incorrect answers.'.
'In view of the fair admission by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent/Consortium, we direct that all the candidates who participated in CLAT UG 2025 with respect to the Sets 'B', 'C' & 'D' of question papers shall, as a consequence, be granted the marks indicated against the said question. Since Set 'A' did not have this error, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the marks obtained by all those candidates who answered correctly,' added the High Court bench.
A candidate who secured All India Rank 22 challenged this before the Supreme Court, saying that the High Court decision put the candidates who received the A Set Question Paper at a disadvantage when compared to the students who received the B, C and D sets, thereby robbing her of a level playing field.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
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…'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
330 deported to Bangladesh: Himanta cites 1950 law to say District Collectors can push ‘foreigners' back
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma Monday announced in a special one-day session of the Assam Assembly that the state government has decided to bring a 1950 Act into action to 'push back' into Bangladesh anyone who District Collectors prima facie find to be foreigners — without going through the state's existing system of Foreigners Tribunals. The CM claimed the state had been empowered to do so by the Supreme Court. He said this will be implemented in addition to the ongoing 'pushbacks' of people who have been declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs); around 330 such declared foreigners have been pushed into Bangladesh in the past couple of weeks. Speaking in the Assembly, Sarma referred to the October 2024 judgment of the Supreme Court in which a majority of a five-member Constitutional Bench headed by then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which makes March 24, 1971 the cut-off date for citizenship in Assam. 'Four judges said 1971 is the cut-off date. But one thing the Supreme Court said repeatedly was that the people brought after 1971 should not be spared in any way. They will have to be deported… In that judgment, the Supreme Court gave the Assam government a sweeping power… The Supreme Court in this judgement affirmed that the 1950 expulsion Act remains valid and operative. That means for expelling foreigners, the government does not have to go to tribunals. The 1950 Act says that if the DC says that prima facie this person is a foreigner, he can be evicted from the state of Assam,' Sarma said. 'By the order of the Supreme Court, every Deputy Commissioner is empowered to evict anybody whom he feels is a foreigner. This is the law of the land… This power has been given to the state of Assam by the Honourable Supreme Court… It says in the Act itself that it will not be applicable to those who came for reasons like religious persecution,' he said. Sarma was speaking after multiple Opposition MLAs, including Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Debabrata Saikia and AIUDF MLA Ashraful Hussain, spoke at length in the Assembly during Zero Hour and Special Mention raising concern over the manner in which these pushbacks have been taking place, alleging that in multiple instances, Indians are being 'persecuted' in the name of a drive against foreigners. 'These pushbacks will be intensified. Because the way Pakistani elements have entered our state, Bangladesh fundamentalist elements have entered, to save itself, the state has to become more proactive than before. That's why the state government has decided that we will bring the Illegal Expulsion Act into action, and whoever the DCs think are foreigners, we will push back without referring to tribunals… Deportation will now be a reality. Even if their names are in the NRC,' he said. Sarma's statements led to a furore in the assembly, with opposition MLAs questioning the validity of the actions. Congress MLA Zakir Hussain Sikdar asked on what basis the DCs would identify 'foreigners' under this course of action, to which Sarma replied, 'The DC has to be satisfied about it.' This drew more opposition, with Sikdar shouting, 'That can't be the system.' Speaking in the Assembly after Sarma, Leader of Opposition Saikia said the Act in question 'does not mention anything about pushback'. 'We are a state of India and in Parliament Union Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar had said it is the obligation of all countries to take back their nationals if they are found to be living illegally abroad. This is, however, subject to an unambiguous verification of their nationality. This is not a policy practised only in India; it is a generally accepted principle in international relations. Therefore, if Bangladeshis come to India, they have to go back, Bangladesh has to accept them and they have to be proved to be Bangladeshis,' he said. He said that even when the Act had first been introduced in 1950, it did not remain in force for very long. 'The Act they are talking about had been used for only a couple of days in Assam because at that time, it invited trouble for many Bengali Muslims and after an old resident was asked to leave his residence in Upper Assam town within a few days, Nehru was furious and wrote to Gopinath Bordoloi (the then Chief Minister) on April 10 to suspend the enforcement of the Act. It was in force for only a few days, and it was stopped,' he said. The system at present and the 1950 Act Under the existing system in the state, the identification and declaration of 'foreigners' is done through Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). FTs are quasi-judicial bodies that determine whether a person presented before them — usually referred by the border police or listed as 'D-voters' in electoral rolls — is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by approaching the Gauahti High Court and the Supreme Court. One of the 13 questions that had been framed for and deliberated by that Constitutional Bench had been: 'Whether the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 being a special enactment qua immigrants into Assam, alone can apply to migrants from East Pakistan/Bangladesh to the exclusion of the general Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 made thereunder.' In the judgment, after upholding the validity of Section 6A, the court had issued a set of six directions, of which one was: 'The provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants.' The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 had commenced from March 1, 1950 and stated that if any person had been an ordinary resident of a place outside India and entered Assam, and the Central government is 'of opinion… that the the stay of such person or class of persons in Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or of any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam', then the central government may 'direct' them to 'remove himself or themselves from India or Assam within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order.' It states that the Central government can delegate this power to any officer of the Central government or the Assam government.
