Delhi High Court Orders Revision of CLAT 2025 Results

The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025, one of India’s most important exams for law aspirants, is facing legal trouble. Errors in the undergraduate (UG) question paper and complaints about the postgraduate (PG) exam’s fairness have led to cases being filed in both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

A petition about the CLAT PG 2025 exam was filed in the Supreme Court. The petitioners claimed there were issues with how the exam was conducted, including:

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, saying such matters should first be taken up by the High Court. Following this, the petitioners approached the High Court, where the case was then examined. For the PG exam, the High Court will decide if the complaints about unfair treatment and mistakes require any action from the Consortium.

In an e-mail to the candidates who took CLAT 2025, the CLAT Consortium spoke about a Delhi High Court order requiring a revision of the CLAT 2025 merit list, initially published on December 7, 2024. The Consortium has stated that they will be consulting senior lawyers to determine their next steps.

The Delhi High Court’s order came in response to a petition filed by Aditya Singh, a 17-year-old candidate who appeared for the CLAT 2025 undergraduate exam.

Singh challenged the final answer key released by the Consortium, arguing that some answers were incorrect. He sought to have the final answer key set aside and requested a temporary halt to the counseling process.

According to Singh, he had raised objections to certain answers after the Consortium released a provisional answer key. Despite this, the final answer key failed to address these issues and repeated the same errors.

Afterwards, Singh followed the grievance redressal process established by the Consortium to highlight the mistakes. However, the Consortium proceeded with the counseling process without resolving his complaints.

Singh contended that these errors in the answer key caused him to lose marks, negatively affecting his chances of admission. He argued that if his objections had been addressed correctly, he could have achieved a better rank and secured admission to a more prestigious institution.

In addition to revising the results, Singh requested that the court direct the Consortium to form an expert committee to reassess his objections, marks, and ranking.

The court identified clear mistakes in questions 14 and 100 of Set A, stating that ignoring these would be unjust to candidates. Consequently, the court ordered that all candidates who selected option ‘C’ for question 14 should receive marks for that question, and question 100 should be excluded from the evaluation process.

The court acknowledged that while judicial intervention in academic matters should be limited, it is warranted in cases where there are blatant errors in examination questions or answer keys.

The Consortium is now expected to implement the court’s directives by awarding marks to all candidates who chose option ‘C’ for question 14 and excluding question 100 from the scoring. This revision aims to ensure fairness and accuracy in the evaluation process for all candidates.

The Consortium, in its e-mail, acknowledges that this situation may create uncertainty and assure candidates of their commitment to transparency and fairness. As a result, the release of the first admission list for NLUs, originally scheduled for December 26, 2024, is likely to be delayed.