Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the objections raised by candidates against certain questions and answers in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-2025 were maintainable in specific instances. The Court directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the evaluation of CLAT-2025 by considering the upheld objections, correct demonstrably erroneous answer keys, exclude questions found to be out of syllabus, and assign marks where inconsistencies existed across question sets. It further directed that the revised marksheets be prepared and the final merit list be re-published within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The directive followed a batch of writ petitions and appeals consolidated from across High Courts pursuant to an order by the Supreme Court.

The present matter concerns a batch of writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) filed before the High Court of Delhi, challenging various aspects of the evaluation process of the Undergraduate Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-2025, conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities. The litigation arises in the backdrop of several candidates raising objections to the questions and the corresponding answer keys used for the examination held on December 1, 2024.

Also Read: Gujarat HC Upholds GPSC's Disqualification in Fire Officer Recruitment : Experience Must Follow Qualification and No Rule Permits Counting Experience Gained Before Required Certification

The admission notification for CLAT-2025 was issued by the Consortium inviting applications for admission to the five-year integrated law programmes offered by the National Law Universities (NLUs). Following the examination, candidates were assigned one of four sets of question papers—Sets A, B, C, and D—each consisting of 120 questions with a marking scheme of +1 for each correct answer and −0.25 for each incorrect response.

On December 2, 2024, a Provisional Answer Key was published for all four paper sets, alongside an invitation for objections. Candidates were required to submit objections by 4:00 PM on December 3, 2024, upon payment of a nominal fee per question. Subsequently, the Final Answer Key was released on December 7, 2024, incorporating or rejecting the objections submitted. Following the publication of the final results, candidates filed writ petitions before various High Courts, challenging the evaluation and specific answers in the Final Answer Key. By an order dated February 6, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred these cases to the Delhi High Court for consolidated adjudication.

The LPAs, bearing numbers 1250/2024 and 1251/2024, challenge a judgment of the Single Judge dated December 20, 2024, which had partly addressed some of the candidates’ objections. The Division Bench, while acknowledging the judgment under appeal, undertook an independent and detailed review of each contested question in light of the Supreme Court's guidelines and precedent decisions governing judicial scrutiny of academic evaluations.

The petitioners included several students and aspirants who had appeared in the CLAT-2025 and alleged errors in the framing of questions, inconsistencies in the answer keys, violations of examination guidelines, and inadequacies in the evaluation process. Specific allegations included: acceptance of legally incorrect answers by the Consortium, non-consideration of objections raised within the prescribed window, and errors due to inconsistency in question numbering across different sets.

The petitioners contended that some questions included in the examination were outside the declared syllabus, particularly under the section “Legal Reasoning,” which explicitly stated that aspirants were not required to have prior knowledge of law. They argued that such questions disadvantaged candidates who relied solely on the comprehension-based approach promoted in the examination guidelines. Moreover, candidates objected to the denial of marks for questions which, in their view, had more than one plausible answer or suffered from ambiguity.

For instance, Question 5 of the Master Booklet, arising from an English comprehension passage, was alleged to be incorrectly evaluated. The Single Judge had ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding that the correct answer was different from what the Consortium had initially accepted. The Division Bench concurred with this finding, observing that the objection raised was legitimate and not based on legal reasoning but rather on a plain reading of the passage in context.

In contrast, objections raised post-result publication and without prior submission during the designated window were dismissed by the Court. The Bench relied upon settled jurisprudence to hold that allowing such objections would open the floodgates to belated litigation and compromise the finality of competitive examinations.

Where expert committees had been constituted by the Consortium to examine the objections, their findings were generally upheld unless the error was deemed demonstrably or palpably wrong. In a few specific cases—such as Questions 77, 80, 115, and 116—the Court found that the question either required prior legal knowledge in contravention of syllabus guidelines or involved inconsistencies across question sets, thus justifying intervention.

In Question 77, which pertained to the contractual capacity of a minor under Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Court found that the passage did not refer to the legal status of minors, rendering the question out of syllabus. The Bench ruled that the question be excluded and treated as withdrawn.

In Questions 115 and 116, a discrepancy in cross-referencing between Sets A, B, C, and D was acknowledged by the Consortium itself. The error was found to have resulted from misaligned references in the question booklet and was deemed significant enough to warrant awarding marks to all affected candidates who attempted those questions.

In total, the Court examined a wide range of questions across various sections of the Master Booklet, including English Comprehension, Current Affairs including General Knowledge, Logical Reasoning, and Legal Reasoning. The review also covered the objections procedure, reference to expert and oversight committees, the legitimacy of the objections raised, and the procedural compliance by both parties.

Throughout the proceedings, the Court was guided by precedent decisions including Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 357], Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal [2024 SCC OnLine Del 7144], and Salil Maheshwari v. High Court of Delhi [2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563]. These decisions collectively emphasized judicial restraint in interfering with academic evaluations, except in cases where the error is clearly demonstrable and not based on interpretative reasoning.

The Division Bench ultimately undertook a question-by-question analysis, upholding some objections, dismissing others for procedural lapses, and directing a partial re-evaluation based on findings of factual or procedural irregularities. The Court was also mindful of ensuring uniform treatment to similarly situated candidates and avoiding any adverse effect on those who had provided answers based on the Final Answer Key as published.

Referring to the decision in Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Court stated that:

“The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

It further quoted: “The court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any ‘inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation’ and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.”

Addressing the argument that courts must entirely refrain from interfering in such matters, the Court referenced Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7144, and stated: “Circumspection is the general rule, especially where experts have considered the objections raised to the answer key.”

However, it noted that judicial review cannot be foreclosed altogether: “It is equally obvious that the sphere of judicial review cannot be all together foreclosed when such challenges arise.”

The Court clarified that its jurisdiction may be exercised where errors are manifest: “There may be gross cases, or cases in which it is evident without any necessity for ratiocination or intricate reasoning that the answer under challenge is palpably incorrect.”

Referring again to Shubham Pal, the Bench recorded: “The law does not commend, or even recommend, a ‘hands-off approach’.”

The Court stated that judicial interference must meet a strict threshold:

“The guiding principle is that the general rule against accepting the suggested answer key stands relaxed only where the suggested answer is proved to be wrong, not by an inferential process of reasoning or rationalisation, but clearly and demonstrably wrong, in that no reasonable body of men well versed in the subject would regard the key answer as correct.”

On Question No. 5 of the Master Booklet, concerning an English Comprehension passage, the Court agreed with the Single Judge’s conclusion that the Consortium’s answer was incorrect. It stated:

“It is manifest from the passage that there is no reference to ‘auctioneers of cheap bags’, thus, the answer to the Question no.5 of Master Booklet clearly and manifestly could only be option (c), ‘auctioneers of cheap bags’, without applying any legal reasoning.”

Regarding late objections such as Question No. 14, the Court considered the timing of the challenge and cited Salil Maheshwari v. High Court of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563:

“An individual cannot be heard to challenge the answer key to a particular question after discovery that no marks have been awarded particularly when such individual did not think it necessary to object to the question before the deadline.”

It held: “In case this Court were to entertain such highly belated objections, it would open a pandora’s box.”

On Question No. 37, relating to diplomatic developments in BRICS, the Court found that the passage supported only one logical answer: “Looked at any which way, the only possible and plausible answer in the context of the passage appears to be option (c).”

For Question No. 49, which involved interpretation of a legislative provision tied to census and delimitation, the Court stated: “Option (c), ‘Will come to force after Census’ being incomplete, may not be the correct answer and the option (d), ‘None of the above’ appears to be the correct answer.”

On Question No. 56 concerning climate justice, the Court analysed both the beginning and conclusion of the passage and recorded:

“Though it is correct that the underlined portion in the first part of the passage appears to conform to the option (c), yet the underlined portion at the end of the passage demonstrates the law as is applicable on date.”

“Read in the above context, there is no doubt that option (d) is the only correct answer.”

Regarding Question No. 77 on the contractual capacity of minors, the Court observed: “The passage neither refers to minors nor gives any indication as to their incapacity or lack of competence to enter into or execute any contract.”

It held: “The answer to Question no.77 would, in our opinion, require prior knowledge of law… In that view of the matter, the Question no.77 is held to be ‘Out of Syllabus’ and is excluded and treated as withdrawn.”

On Question No. 80, which dealt with legislative assent, the Court recorded: “The passage clearly and unambiguously stated, ‘The Bill had received assent from the President of India on the 13th February 2024’.”

In relation to procedural errors in cross-referencing across question sets (Questions 115 and 116), the Court noted: “Since the error as occurred on the part of the respondent/Consortium itself… no fault can be found with the candidates for giving or not giving correct or incorrect answers.”

It directed: “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.”

On Question No. 115, it added:

“Since the respondent/Consortium itself had given a wrong option as an answer without rectifying or reviewing the same, no fault can be found with the candidates… we direct that only those candidates who had attempted Question no.115 of the Master Booklet, correctly or incorrectly, shall, as a consequence, be granted the marks indicated.”

With respect to the standard of review overall, the Court reiterated its reliance on Ran Vijay Singh: “If two views are possible, then the view taken by the examination conducting authority should be preferred and upheld.”

The Court issued a set of directions to the Consortium of National Law Universities following its analysis of the objections raised to the CLAT-2025 evaluation process. It directed that the marksheets of candidates be revised in accordance with the conclusions drawn in the judgment. A revised final merit list is to be prepared and published within four weeks from the date of the decision.

The Consortium was directed to apply the corrected evaluation not only to the petitioners and appellants before the Court but also to all similarly situated candidates who may have attempted the questions addressed in the ruling and are eligible for relief on the same grounds.

In relation to Question No. 5, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s conclusion that the answer key was incorrect and directed that all resulting consequences be implemented. No direction was issued regarding Question No. 14, as the petitioner had failed to raise objections within the prescribed objection window.

The Court upheld the validity of the Consortium’s final answer key for Questions Nos. 37, 49, 56, and 78, and rejected the corresponding objections.

Question No. 77 was held to be out of syllabus, and the Court ordered its withdrawal from the scoring process. For Question No. 88, full marks were directed to be awarded to all candidates who attempted the question and selected the corrected answer, as endorsed by the Oversight Committee.

In Question No. 115, the Consortium conceded that the final key was incorrect. The Court directed that all candidates who attempted the question be awarded full marks, irrespective of their selected option.

Also Read: “Absence of Motive Cannot Result in Acquittal When Circumstances Are Convincing” | Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Complete Chain of Evidence

Regarding Question No. 116, the Court found that referencing errors had affected candidates in Sets B, C, and D. Full marks were directed for all candidates in these sets who attempted the question. No change was ordered for candidates in Set A.

All writ petitions and appeals were disposed of with these directions. The Court further recorded its appreciation for the contributions of counsel. It acknowledged the efforts of Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Senior Advocate, and his team for the Consortium, as well as Mr. Dhanesh Relan and his team for coordinating information from petitioners and presenting it comprehensively in the written submissions and supporting documentation.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr. Arjeet Gaur, Mr. Naveen Malik, Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Ms. Sakshi Arora, Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Aniket D Agrawal, Mr. Ram Krishna Rao, Ms. T. Archana, Mr. Archit Mishra, Mr. Digvijay, Mr. Yash Dadriwal, Mr. Amol Jagtap, Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Mr. Rohit Sinha, Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Mr. Agnibha Chatterjee, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Rishab Parakh, Mr. Prathambir Agarwal, Mr. Yajat Sen.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr. Shubhansh Thakur, Mr. Wamic Wasim, Mr. Nishant Gautam, Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. Prithviraj Dey, Mr. Vipul Verma.

Case Title: Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and Connected Matters
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2838-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

[Read/Download order]