In a significant judgment highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness in competitive examinations, the Delhi High Court partially allowed a petition challenging the final answer key of CLAT-2025. Justice Jyoti Singh directed the revision of results for two disputed questions, reaffirming the principle that courts cannot ignore demonstrably incorrect evaluations. The case, brought by Aditya Singh, a minor, underscores the critical balance between judicial restraint and the need for fairness in high-stakes academic testing.
Background of the Case
Aditya Singh, an aspirant aiming to secure admission to one of the top three National Law Universities (NLUs), filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 17138/2024) before the Delhi High Court. He contested the accuracy of the final answer key released by the Consortium of National Law Universities (CNLU), which conducts the CLAT exam. Represented by Advocate Mr. Dhanesh Relan and his team, Singh argued that errors in five specific questions (Nos. 14, 37, 67, 68, and 100) of Question Paper Set-A resulted in an unjust reduction in his score, affecting his rank.
The CLAT-2025 examination, conducted on December 1, 2024, is a prestigious gateway to the NLUs, and even minor discrepancies in the evaluation process can significantly impact candidates’ academic and professional futures. Although Singh’s current rank secured him a spot in an NLU, his goal of admission to a top-tier NLU propelled him to seek judicial intervention.
Legal Issues
1. Accuracy of Answer Key: Singh alleged errors in five questions and sought rectification to enhance his score and rank.
2. Judicial Review in Academic Matters: The Consortium argued that courts should refrain from interfering in academic evaluations, emphasizing the expertise of its Expert Committees.
3. Territorial Jurisdiction: The Consortium also questioned the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, given that its secretariat is based in Karnataka.
Court Observations and Decision
Justice Jyoti Singh examined the matter through the lens of established legal principles that advocate judicial restraint in academic evaluations. However, the court emphasized that such restraint does not extend to ignoring glaring and demonstrable errors. After a detailed analysis, the court upheld Singh’s objections to Questions 14 and 100, directing appropriate revisions.
1. Question 14: The question pertained to a comprehension passage from a fictional text. The petitioner chose Option C (“Auctioneers of cheap bags”), which was marked incorrect in the final key, favoring Option D (“Sellers of stolen hardware”). The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating:
“No legal reasoning can be imported while attempting a comprehension passage. The answer key is demonstrably and apparently wrong.”
2. Question 100: This seating arrangement question lacked the correct answer (“Sohan”) in the provided options. The court found the data in the question sufficient to ascertain the correct answer but criticized the oversight in not listing it as an option. Justice Singh ordered its exclusion, remarking:
“Errors in Question Nos. 14 and 100 are demonstrably clear, and shutting a blind eye to the same would be injustice to the petitioner.”
3. Remaining Questions (37, 67, 68): The court upheld the Consortium’s evaluation for these questions, emphasizing that judicial review is not warranted when expert opinions are plausible and the issue involves academic interpretation.
4. Jurisdiction: Addressing the jurisdictional challenge, the court held that Article 226(2) of the Constitution grants authority where any part of the cause of action arises. Since Singh appeared for the online examination in Delhi, the court affirmed its jurisdiction.
Counsel Representation
– Petitioner: Advocates Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr. Arjeet Gaur, and others.
– Respondent: Senior Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sethi, supported by Mr. Arun Srikumar and team.
