Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has expressed its inclination to transfer all petitions challenging the results of the Common Law Admission Test-2025 (CLAT-2025) to the Punjab and Haryana High Court for unified adjudication. The petitions, filed in multiple High Courts across the country, contest the results of the examination held in December 2024 for admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in National Law Universities (NLUs).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar noted the potential benefits of consolidating the cases to ensure consistency and expediency. The Court issued notices in the transfer petitions filed by the Consortium of National Law Universities, seeking to centralize the disputes either in the Supreme Court or in a specific High Court.

The CLAT-2025 results have been challenged in various High Courts, including Delhi, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab & Haryana. The disputes include issues related to the validity of answer keys and discrepancies in the evaluation process. Notably, a single judge of the Delhi High Court had earlier found that two answers in the CLAT-UG 2025 answer key were incorrect and directed the Consortium to revise the results for the affected petitioners.

The Consortium of National Law Universities, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that consolidating the petitions in one court would prevent contradictory judgments and facilitate a faster resolution. The Solicitor General suggested transferring the cases to the Karnataka High Court. However, the Chief Justice of India observed that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was the appropriate forum, given that the first petition was filed there.

During the proceedings, the bench stated: “The writ petitions pending in different High Courts should be dealt with by one High Court, as it would be expeditious and would also prevent contradictory judgments.”

The bench issued notices to the parties involved in the High Court petitions and set a returnable date in the week commencing February 3, 2025. The notice will be served through the counsels representing the petitioners in the respective High Courts.

The Supreme Court noted the procedural importance of consolidating similar petitions to avoid delays and inconsistencies in judgments. It recorded: “Consolidation of petitions in one High Court would streamline the process and facilitate uniformity in the resolution of issues raised by the petitioners.”

Counsels for some students argued that the cases should be transferred to the Delhi High Court, which had already passed an order on the validity of certain answers. They submitted that the Delhi High Court’s division bench had observed no prima facie error in the single judge’s ruling regarding answer key discrepancies.

Chief Justice Khanna noted the efficiency of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, remarking: “At the P&H High Court, the disposal rate is very good, it is higher than other courts.” The bench expressed its satisfaction with the High Court’s capacity to handle the consolidated petitions expeditiously.

The Supreme Court directed the issuance of notices in the transfer petitions and instructed that the pending matters be heard collectively in a single High Court. The bench ordered: “Notwithstanding the pendency of the present petition, the parties may complete the pleadings in the respective writ petitions.”

The bench reserved its final decision on the transfer of cases to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stating that the matter would be revisited during the hearing scheduled in February 2025.

In December 2024, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a similar petition challenging the CLAT-PG 2025 answer keys, directing the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts instead. The Delhi High Court’s single bench later found discrepancies in two answers in the CLAT-UG 2025 exam and ordered the Consortium to revise the results for the petitioners. The division bench, while hearing the Consortium’s appeal, did not find prima facie errors in the single judge’s decision.

Case Title: Consortium of National Law Universities v. Master Aditya Singh, Minor

Case Number: TP(C) Nos. 46-54/2025

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar

[Read/Download order]