It Would Be Unreasonable to Expect the Candidates to Look for Any Answer Beyond What Is Provided in the Passage Itself: Delhi High Court Directs Consortium to Revise CLAT PG Results
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the CLAT PG 2024–25 results. The Court held that specific answers provided in the final answer key were erroneous and instructed the Consortium to re-evaluate affected answer sheets accordingly. While the Court declined to strike down the ₹1,000 fee per question for objections, it directed that the issue be placed before a committee for reconsideration in future examinations. The Court also accepted the Consortium’s decision to withdraw one of the disputed questions and directed that the remaining objections be resolved through score corrections.
The petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking judicial intervention against the final answer key published by the Consortium of National Law Universities for CLAT PG 2024–25. The petitioners requested a direction to rectify incorrect answers and reissue the results accordingly. They also challenged the ₹1,000 fee levied per question to object to the provisional answer key.
The petitioners admitted they did not file objections during the specified window. They contended that the fee was unreasonably high and financially prohibitive, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to dispute inaccuracies in the provisional key. They also referred to a pending writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court challenging the same fee.
Initially, objections were raised to eight questions (Nos. 11, 21, 52, 56, 57, 89, 90, 98 in the Master Booklet). However, the Consortium had already addressed four of them (Nos. 11, 52, 89, and 90) in a meeting of its Executive Committee held on 4 April 2025. Accordingly, the Court restricted its analysis to the remaining four questions: 21, 56, 57, and 98.
In the case of Question No. 56, the Consortium acknowledged that the options listed in the Master Booklet were inconsistent with those appearing in candidate booklets. It stated that the question had been withdrawn from assessment, and marks would not be awarded for it in any version. The Court noted that this step was consistent with the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Anr., where a similar issue arose in relation to the undergraduate CLAT.
Question No. 21 related to the interpretation of the term "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, based on a passage paraphrasing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors., 1978 (2) SCC 213. The Consortium treated option ‘B’—based on the “dominant function” test—as correct. The petitioners contended that option ‘C’—emphasizing the nature of the activity and employer-employee relationship—was the appropriate answer as per the content of the passage.
Question No. 57 was based on a passage paraphrasing Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (10) SCC 700, concerning the imposition of GST on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism. It presented an Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and asked candidates to determine the relationship. The Consortium chose option ‘a’ (both A and R are true; R is the correct explanation). The petitioners argued for option ‘b’ (both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation).
Question No. 98 involved jurisprudential theory and asked who said: “Right is an interest which is to be recognised, protected and enforced by law.” The Consortium identified Roscoe Pound as the correct source, whereas the petitioners attributed the definition to Salmond, relying on legal texts and judicial precedents.
In addition, the petitioners challenged the ₹1,000 per-question objection fee as arbitrary and lacking statutory basis. They produced a comparative chart showing that other national-level exams, such as NEET, UGC-NET, and JEE, charged significantly lower objection fees (₹100–200). They also referred to a previous committee report highlighting excessive profits generated by the Consortium during earlier examinations.
The Consortium defended the fee on the grounds that it deters frivolous objections and enables efficient adjudication. It submitted that refunds were issued for sustained objections and that the measure was necessary to ensure integrity and administrative feasibility in handling numerous candidate responses.
The Court observed regarding Question No. 21: “The passage clearly uses the sentence ‘The Court asserted that what mattered was the nature of the activity and the relationship between the employer and the employees’. This on the face of it appears to be a conclusion or an opinion of the Court. Other than that, the passage does not refer to ‘Dominant Function Test’.”
It further recorded: “The Subject Expert Committee appears to have misdirected itself by referring to para 143 of the said judgment to conclude that option ‘B’ is the correct answer.”
And concluded: “It would be unreasonable to expect the candidates to look for any answer beyond what is provided in the passage itself.”
On Question No. 56, the Court noted: “The said Question No.56 has been withdrawn. Resultantly… shall not be reckoned for the purposes of evaluation of Answer Sheets of any candidate across all four Sets.”
And confirmed: “In conformity to the directions contained in para 55 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddhi Sandeep Ladda vs. Consortium of National Law Universities and Anr.”
On Question No. 57, the Court observed: “The Consortium has, concededly, made yet another error by referring to passage (XII) as extract from the judgment of Mohit Minerals (supra), while this passage too appears to be a commentary or an extract from some Digest.”
It added: “From a plain and literal reading of the said passage… it is clear that the Importer is not liable to pay GST on Ocean Freight under the ‘reverse charge mechanism’ if they are not the recipient of the service.”
Regarding Question No. 98, the Court recorded: “Plainly, we do not see how the Consortium can take a stand that it is Roscoe Pound and not Salmond who has given the statement posed in Question No.98 of the Master Booklet.”
It stated: “The Bombay High Court as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, after examining the relevant material, quoted the statement of Salmond which aligns with and conforms to the statement posed as Question No.98.”
On the ₹1,000 fee, the Court remarked: “There has to be a fine balance which needs to be resolved between two sets of, what appears to be, genuine grievances.”
It continued: “While comparing the fee charged for objected questions by other organisations/institutions of National level with that charged by the Consortium appears to be excessive and disproportionate... the concerns of the Consortium... appear to be a measure which may be required in order to keep frivolous individuals and more so, the coaching institutes at bay.”
It concluded: “Most of the candidates have already paid such fees, [and] quashing such levy at this point in time may entail obstacles which may be unnecessary and may result in litigations which are not required.”
The Court directed that Question No. 56, having been withdrawn due to inconsistency in options, shall not be considered for evaluation in any version of the test.
In respect of Question No. 21, the Court found that the answer listed in the final key (option ‘B’) was not supported by the passage and that option ‘C’ must be treated as correct. The Consortium was instructed to revise the results accordingly.
For Question No. 57, the Court accepted the Consortium’s evaluation and found that option ‘a’ was correctly marked. No changes were ordered for this question.
Regarding Question No. 98, the Court held that the quoted definition of “right” corresponded to the jurisprudence of Salmond and not Roscoe Pound. It directed the Consortium to designate option ‘b’ as the correct answer and re-evaluate affected papers.
Although the Court did not invalidate the ₹1,000 fee, it advised the Consortium to place the issue before the committee led by Justice G. Raghuram (Retd.) for an informed review. It expressed the expectation that appropriate modifications would be made in future examination cycles to prevent inequity.
The Consortium was directed to implement the above corrections and declare revised results without undue delay.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta (Nodal Counsel CLAT PG), Mr. Aman Agarwal, Mr. Shrvan Lahoti, Mr. Uddaish Palya, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, Mr. Siddhartha Sahu, Advocates; Ms. Kaadambari Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Muskaan Chawla, Ms. Tanya Singh Kaurav, Mr. Navin Thakur, Mr. Ashish Manral, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr. Shubhansh Thakur, Ms. Saumya Sinha, Advocates.
Case Title: Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities & Connected Matters
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4915-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2364/2025 & connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
[Read/Download order]
