The Delhi High Court on Friday accepted objections to two questions out of three raised by candidates who wrote the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025 held for postgraduate (PG) students [Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities]. .The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to award marks to the candidates accordingly.It observed that one of the questions pertaining to a supposed extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa and Ors was not an actual extract, but was taken from a commentary or from a digest. “It is not disputed that the candidates who had appeared in the examination were not previously provided with any list of judgments that they were to be ready with. That apart, it is not disputed that the passage (V) is not an extract from the judgment. In that view of the matter, it would be unreasonable to expect the candidates to look for any answer beyond what is provided in the passage itself. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the answer in option ‘B’ is incorrect and option ‘C’ is the correct answer. Resultantly, the Consortium shall accord marks to the candidates accordingly,” the Court ordered. .The Court also disagreed with Consortium’s answer to a Jurisprudence question as to who had said “Right is an interest which is to be recognised, protected and enforced by law”.“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. 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. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accede to the submissions of Mr. Sri Kumar. Thus, clearly, it is option (b) i.e. Salmond and not option (a) i.e. Pound, which is the correct answer. Resultantly, the Consortium shall award marks to the candidates accordingly,” the Court ordered..The petitioners had also sought a direction to the Consortium to reconsider the excessive fee of ₹1,000 per objection to the provisional answer key of the CLAT PG examination.The Court observed that the Consortium must avoid charging an exorbitant amount for raising objections to the provisional answer key. However, it also accepted Consortium’s argument that such a fee was aimed at preventing candidates from bombarding it with frivolous objections. “We are of the considered opinion that there has to be a fine balance which needs to be resolved between two sets of, what appears to be, genuine grievances. On one hand, 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, while appreciating the concerns of the Consortium which too does not appear to be fanciful or imaginative, rather appears to be a measure which may be required in order to keep frivolous individuals and more so, the coaching institutes at bay,” it said..Nevertheless, the Court added that the Consortium should seek the opinion of the committee headed by Justice G Raghuram to take appropriate steps for the future.“However, we expect that the aforesaid observations would be sufficient for the Consortium to take heed of and take appropriate steps to avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations, scheduled for the following years. In our considered opinion, it may be advisable for the Consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram (Retd.) for his valuable opinion which may be adhered to by it," the Court directed. .The Court was hearing a batch of matters filed challenging the errors in the exam that was held on December 1, 2024.Initially, a total of eight questions were challenged before the Court. Thereafter, the Consortium held an internal meeting on April 4 and withdrew four of these questions. During the course of hearing, the Consortium withdrew one more question. The Court then reserved verdict on the remaining three questions and passed its verdict today..Advocates Siddharth R Gupta, (nodal counsel CLAT PG) with Advocates Aman Agarwal, Shravan Lahoti, Uddaish Palya, Mrigank Prabhakar and Siddhartha Sahu appeared for candidates Anam Khan and Ayush Agrawal.Senior Advocate Kaadambari Singh with Advocates Muskaan Chawla, Tanya Singh Kaurav, Navin Thakur and Ashish Manral appeared for candidate Nitika. Advocates Arun Srikumar, Shubhansh Thakur and Saumya Sinha appeared for the Consortium. .[Read judgment]
