Law aspirant moves Delhi High Court seeking further revision of CLAT 2025 results

An appeal has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging a single-judge's recent verdict on a plea raising concerns about errors in the questions and final answer key released for the Common Law Admission Test, 2025 (CLAT) for undergraduate law admissions [Aditya Singh (Minor) vs Consortium Of National Law Universities]..On December 20, a single judge of the High Court had partly allowed the plea filed by a 17-year-old CLAT candidate on finding that there were errors in two questions that appeared in the law entrance test for undergraduate admissions to National Law Universities (NLUs). The single judge had, therefore, directed the Consortium of NLUs to announce revised results after making changes in the award of marks with regard to these two questions.The CLAT candidate who filed the plea, however, has claimed that there were three more 'blatant mistakes' remaining in the CLAT paper that the single-judge failed to correct. Therefore, he has filed an appeal (through his father) seeking a further revision of the CLAT results. The appeal is listed tomorrow for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court..In his appeal, the CLAT candidate (appellant) has submitted that he had flagged five questions with errors. Of these, single judge, Justice Jyoti Singh had found only two questions (questions 14 and 100 of set A of the CLAT-UG paper) to be erroneous.In the December 20 verdict under challenge, the Justice Singh had found that the answer to question 14 was actually option "C", and not the alternate option set in the CLAT answer key."Since Court has upheld option ‘C’ as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Expert Committee, benefit cannot be restricted only to the petitioner and will extend to all candidates who have opted for option ‘C’," the Court proceeded to order.As regards question 100, the Court directed that the same be excluded.“Question number 100 will be excluded as correctly advised by the Expert Committee and the result will be accordingly revised,” it said..The appellant has now challenged this verdict, in so far as it did not order any revision of the answer key for three other questions flagged by him. "The errors in the remaining questions i.e. questions no. 37, 67 and 68 contain blatant mistakes that affect the integrity of the entire examination process. Despite this, the Court did not intervene to correct these questions, leaving the appellant and many other candidates at a disadvantage," the plea said. The appellant-candidate has, therefore, called on the High Court's Division Bench to modify the single-judge order to the extent that it concerns these three remaining questions.“Ld. Single Judge should have applied the standard expected of the candidates appearing in the CLAT-2025 exam and not the standard of legal knowledge and skill exhibited by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents,” the appeal further states..Advocates Dhanesh Relan, Arjeet Gaur, Barinda Batra, Atul Kanti Tripathi, Suryansh Jamwal and Sachin Sharma represented the CLAT candidate. Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with advocates Arun Srikumar, AK Trivedi, Ram Shankar, Yash Jagra, Shubhansh Thakur and Shreya Sethi appeared for the Consortium of NLUs.