CLAT 2025 UG: 15 questions and answers in dispute before the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the results of this year's Common Law Admission Test (CLAT 2025) for admission to undergraduate law courses in National Law Universities (NLUs)..Like its previous iterations, this year's paper came under heavy criticism, with scores of students across the country alluding to errors in the questions and answers. Even as the Consortium of NLUs stuck to its guns and made minor concessions, the students were prompted to move court to get relief.On December 20, 2024, Justice Jyoti Singh partly allowed a plea filed by a 17-year-old CLAT candidate regarding certain errors alleged in the CLAT UG paper. This ruling was challenged before a division bench of the High Court, with the NLU Consortium contending that the single-judge had wrongly donned the hat of an expert. The CLAT candidate also filed an appeal, seeking a further revision of his result. Later, the NLU Consortium moved the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of the matter to the top court. Petitions challenging the CLAT results were under challenge before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court, among other High Courts. To avoid such parallel proceedings, the Supreme Court on February 6 ordered the transfer of all CLAT-related cases to the Delhi High Court..The petitioners before the High Court have flagged at least 15 questions and answers that are in dispute. It is to be noted that this is not an exhaustive list, as some petitions were filed after the NLU Consortium filed its reply to the petitions..With the fate of the results now in the hands of a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, we take a closer look at the questions that have been flagged by the candidates..Why the issue ended up in court.As per the procedure notified by the Consortium of NLUs, students could file objections to the answer key by December 3. Such objections were considered by an Expert Committee and then by an Oversight Committee.The Expert Committee was chaired by a former Vice-Chancellor of National University of Juridical Sciences, West Bengal and Karnataka State Law University. It included 8 other experts from varied fields.The Oversight Committee was chaired by a former Chief Justice of a High Court and included Vice-Chancellors of different universities..After reviewing the objections, the Expert Committee recommended changes in 2 answers of the provisional answer key and withdrawal of 5 questions. The Oversight Committee recommended withdrawal of 4 questions from the final answer key. It is pointed out in the submissions before the High Court that the Expert Committee gave a split decision on 2 logical reasoning questions. Further, the Oversight Committee differed from the Expert Committee's opinion on 2 questions.The petitioners have also submitted that the Oversight Committee did not assess several questions referred to it by the Expert Committee, sans any explanation. “The Oversight Committee failed in performing it's duty as it applied it's mind only in respect of Eight (8) questions in total; and that comprised only four (4) out of the disputed fourteen (14) questions which were placed before it, whereas rest of the l0 disputed questions were never considered,” one of the petitions states..Petitioner Aditya Singh states that no reasons were given by both the committees for the correct answers declared by them. “The reasoning of the Expert and Expert Committee is not evident and the grievance redressal mechanism has totally failed because neither the Expert Committee gives any reason nor the Oversight Committee has considered the question and objections thereto,” the petition states..It is pertinent to look into the errors alleged by the candidates, section-wise..Legal Reasoning.A large number of objections were raised in the Legal Reasoning section. The Oversight Committee did not assess these questions.Petitioners stated that the scope of the syllabus clearly states that to solve the Legal Reasoning questions, the students are not required to have prior knowledge of law. This was something even the High Court pointed out in the last hearing. The Chief Justice had observed,"You are testing legal understanding of a Class 12th student. He would not know consideration. This is for the experts to decide, but I don't know. Will it be possible for a Class 12 student to know the meaning of consideration under Contract Law?".Question 56. This passage question on Constitutional Law was met with 451 objections..Questions 77-79: The section also contained a passage on void and voidable contracts, based on which questions were asked. 622 objections were filed on a question on the nature of contract between an adult and a minor.389 objections were filed in another question on the same passage, in which candidates were asked to pick which one of the given illustrations would be a void agreement..Petitioner Yajat Sen argued that the correct answer cannot be derived on a bare reading of the passage and prior knowledge of Contract Law was required to solve the question.When the Court asked him why he had not filed the objections in the 24-hour window period, he highlighted the exorbitant cost of ₹1,000 per question students had to pay to raise each objection. He said that his parents were not willing to spend ₹15,000 for objecting to 15 questions..Question 81: Apart from these, a Legal Reasoning passage question on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act is also under challenge..English.Question 11: From the English section, one passage question was slammed with 891 objections over a visible discrepancy. The Expert Committee and the Oversight Committee differed in opinion on this question.The single judge had noted the discrepancy had directed the Consortium to revise this question. The Consortium has appealed against this direction..Current Affairs.Question 37: One question of the Current Affairs section pertains to a passage on the 16th BRICS Summit. The Oversight Committee did not assess this question..Question 49: Another Current Affairs question, based on a passage on the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, was met with 148 objections..Logical Reasoning.Question 88: This section contained a question on seat arrangement, which the Expert Committee recommended withdrawal of. However, the Oversight Committee overruled the Expert Committee's opinion to state that the answer should be changed to option D. .Question 97: In another question based on a passage on the impact of COVID-19 and housing insecurity, the Expert Committee gave a split opinion, differing on option C and option D. The Oversight Committee agreed with one expert on option C being the correct option..Question 93: For another question of the same passage, the Expert Committee again gave a split opinion and the Oversight Committee agreed with the answer chosen by one expert and changed the answer to option C..Question 91: In the next question of the same passage, the Oversight Committee did not give its opinion..Quantitative Techniques.Question 114: The Expert Committee declared that option D is the correct answer. Meanwhile, the Oversight Committee did not assess the question..Question 115: The Expert Committee declared option A as the correct answer. The Oversight Committee did not assess the question..Question 116: It was contended that a wrong reference was made to question 115 on all sets of the CLAT exam. However, the serial number of questions differed in each set of the paper. The Expert Committee opined that option B is correct. The Oversight Committee did not assess the question. .Even as the petitioner-candidates await the final outcome, a group of successful candidates who agree with the final answer key are in the process of filing an intervention application in this matter. An applicant appeared before Court on Wednesday and stated that they are supporting the Consortium’s stand. During the hearings, the Court questioned the paper-setters and the composition of committees evaluating the objections to questions and answers in the Logical Reasoning and the Legal Reasoning sections. It had observed,"You say questions are made by experts. For legal questions, GK, we understand. For logical and quantitative questions, they are part of maths, you do not teach maths. Then who sets these questions?"Whatever the outcome of the case, the onus is on the Consortium to better streamline its objections process and to appoint appropriate persons to both set the paper and review the candidates' objections.