Over five months after the exam was held following a bunch of court cases, Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) results for undergraduate courses were revised and declared on Saturday (May 17). The counselling and seat allotment process will now begin, five months behind the original schedule.
The first seat allotment list, which was supposed to have been out on December 26 last year, will now be published on May 26.
CLAT scores are used for admissions to the National Law Universities (NLUs). The exam is conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities, which has the participating NLUs as its members. The first edition of CLAT was conducted in 2008.
This year, CLAT, which was held on December 1, 2024, faced court cases over a few questions asked in the exam and the correct answers to them. The matter has drawn attention to the framing of questions and the conduct of the exam, with the Supreme Court expressing “deep anguish” in a judgement earlier this month “regarding the callous and casual manner in which” the Consortium of NLUs has been framing questions for CLAT, “an examination on the basis of which meritorious candidates get entry into the prestigious National Law Universities across the country.”
What brought CLAT before the courts this year?
In a petition before the Delhi High Court in December last year, a candidate had challenged the answer key that the consortium declared for CLAT, citing errors in five answers, and alleging that he lost marks because of the errors.
The counsel for the NLU Consortium told the court that it had invited candidates to file their objections to the answer key, and received a total of 5,250 such objections, for 93 out of the 120 questions. It constituted an expert committee and then an oversight committee to review these objections, and four questions were withdrawn (where no option presented in the paper was found to be correct) and answers to three modified.
Referring to an error in a question as pointed out by the candidate, a judgement, dated December 20, by a single judge of the Delhi HC, had asked the consortium to revise the results.
A set of petitions filed across different High Courts challenging certain questions in the exam, along with appeals against the judgement of the single judge, were transferred to a Division Bench of the Delhi HC by the Supreme Court in February this year.
In a judgement pronounced in April, the Delhi HC noted that “in this piquant situation, this Court is examining each and every question objected to by the candidates”. It considered 17 questions and their answers, and rejected objections to some questions, maintained a “hands-off” approach in some, and then asked the consortium to revise the results after its counsel admitted to errors in certain questions.
A candidate with rank 22 then filed a petition in the Supreme Court against this judgement of the HC, stating that candidates who received ‘set A’ of the question paper were at a disadvantage, since the error in a question was recorded in sets B, C and D. For CLAT, all four sets of the question paper have the same questions, but in different order.
What has the Supreme Court said in the matter?
In its judgement this month, the SC said: “…we must state that in academic matters, the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere, in as much as they do not possess the requisite expertise for the same. However, when the academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely affects the career aspirations of lakhs of students, the Court is left with no alternative but to interfere.” The SC judgement dealt with six questions that were the subject of appeals filed before it.
For instance, in one question candidates were asked to answer what the wages paid to women working in the agricultural sector in Goa would be if men are paid Rs 335 on average. The SC judgement noted that to answer the question, “the candidates will have to undergo a detailed mathematics analysis, which is not expected in an objective test,” and asked the consortium to delete the question. It also directed that the question that had an error in sets B, C and D of the question paper be withdrawn across all sets.
Thus, modifying the order of the Delhi HC, the Supreme Court said the results should be revised and counselling should begin within two weeks.
What has happened in similar instances in the past?
This isn’t the first time CLAT is being brought before the courts.
In its judgement on the exam this year, the Supreme Court pointed to two instances. One was a set of petitions in 2018 which highlighted the “improper conduct” of CLAT 2018 (issues at exam centres including login failures, registered answers disappearing, and questions not being fully visible). The SC had asked the then Ministry of Human Resource Development to appoint a committee to look into the matter, and had noted that the idea of a different law university monitoring the conduct of the exam each year “needs to be revisited.”
The second instance was a petition filed by legal scholar Shamnad Basheer in 2015. Noting that Basheer, the sole petitioner in the matter, has passed away, the SC judgement this month said: “We shall, accordingly, after dealing with the present matter pass an appropriate order in this regard.”
Basheer’s petition had said that “despite the growing popularity of CLAT, its planning and execution over the years has been marred with serious institutional lapses and inefficiencies, such as arbitrary and sub-standard question papers, incorrect questions and answers, questions that have no reasonable nexus to one’s aptitude for the study of law, wrongful allotments of seats, unnecessary delays…”. The petition had called for a permanent body to conduct CLAT, institutional reforms, and an expert committee to examine the conduct of the exam.
The Consortium of NLUs was set up in 2017, and it monitors the conduct of the exam for UG and PG programmes.
Modifying the Delhi HC order, the Supreme Court said the results should be revised and counselling should begin within two weeks. (File) 
Share
