Delhi High Court: A batch of petitions was filed by the petitioners arise from the judgement dated 20-12-2024 passed by the Single Judge revolving around the conduct, evaluation, and answer key disputes arising from the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025, administered by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) by the law aspirants (petitioners) who appeared for the examination seeking judicial intervention against certain questions and their evaluated answers in the final answer key released by the Consortium. A division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ., directed the Consortium (respondent) to revise the marksheet and to re-publish/renotify the final list of selected candidates within 04 weeks from date.
The Court clarified that “the Consortium shall apply the evaluation to each of the appellant and petitioners before the Court, the candidates who may have attempted certain questions considered hereinabove as also all the candidates in respect of whom certain benefits can be granted in view of the analysis.”
CLAT 2025, a standardized law entrance examination, included multiple passages followed by questions designed to test comprehension, analytical ability, and legal reasoning. Following the conduct of the exam, the Consortium published a provisional answer key, inviting objections from candidates. Several aspirants submitted objections, which were subsequently reviewed by subject matter experts and an Oversight Committee constituted to ensure fairness and transparency. After the Oversight Committee reviewed the objections, certain changes were made to the provisional answer key. However, many petitioners contested these revisions, particularly in instances where (i) expert opinions were split, (ii) the Oversight Committee allegedly exceeded its mandate, or (iii) the substituted answers lacked textual support from the passage. These grievances culminated in multiple writ petitions challenging the decisions of the Oversight Committee and demanding the restoration of the original key or award of marks for disputed questions.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that in several instances, particularly Question 91 and 93, the revised answers lacked support from the passage and were allegedly incorrect. The Oversight Committee acted ultra vires by changing answers in situations where a split opinion among experts existed. The correct approach would have been to retain the original key prepared by the paper setter where doubt existed, especially when the paper setter’s view was supported by one expert. The judicial review was necessary to protect the rights of meritorious candidates whose rankings and prospects were adversely affected due to erroneous key revisions. In certain questions like no. 88, the absence of adequate data necessitated awarding marks to all candidates who chose “data inadequate” as the answer.
Counsel for respondent defended the integrity and procedural sanctity of the CLAT evaluation mechanism. It argued that the expert bodies are best placed to determine the correctness of answers in specialized examinations and judicial review must be limited. The Courts should not substitute their opinion for that of subject experts unless the decision is manifestly arbitrary or irrational. In questions where a split expert opinion existed, the Oversight Committee applied reasoned discretion by preferring the view most in consonance with the passage content. The Consortium did not act arbitrarily but followed a reasoned process with checks and balances, including involvement of multiple experts.
The Court undertook a granular question-by-question analysis and arrived at the following conclusions:
Question No. 88 (Passage XVI): The Court accepted that the data provided was inadequate to conclusively arrive at any answer. Since the Oversight Committee designated “option (d) — data inadequate” as the correct response, the Court upheld this view. All candidates who selected option (d) were to be awarded full marks, emphasizing the impracticality of judicially re-evaluating intricate academic content.
Question No. 91 (Passage XVII): There was a split opinion among two subject experts—one preferred option (c), and the other along with the paper setter had selected option (d). The Court noted that options (a) and (b) lacked textual backing, making option (d) (i.e., “All of the above”) factually untenable. Therefore, the Oversight Committee’s decision to select option (c) was valid. The Court also reiterated its limited jurisdiction in academic evaluations, reinforcing that preference must be given to expert bodies.
Question No. 93 (Passage XVII): Similar to Question 91, the issue again involved homelessness in the context of mental illness. The passage, however, made no reference to mental illness as a contributor to homelessness. The Court emphasized that since options (a) and (b) were unsupported and option (d) (“All of the above”) included them, it must also be incorrect. The Committee’s switch to option (c) was thus upheld. The Court underscored that where the question’s content diverges from the passage’s theme, it is within the Oversight Committee’s purview to correct it.
Question No. 97 (Passage XVIII): This question sought the most suitable title for a passage on mental health and lifestyle. The petitioner argued for option (a) (“Lifestyle and Mental Health”) while also challenging the validity of the change. The Court observed that multiple answers could be argued to have textual support but refrained from interfering since such evaluative judgments are best left to the experts. The decision of the Oversight Committee was, therefore, not interfered with.
The Court applying the precedent in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over academic evaluations. The Court declined to quash any answer key changes made by the Oversight Committee and upheld all changes made in response to expert evaluations. The Court emphasized that in competitive examinations, the role of the Court is minimal, especially when procedural fairness and expert advice have been diligently followed.
Wherever ambiguity was found and experts declared the data inadequate, such as in Question 88, the Court directed the award of full marks to deserving candidates. However, in other cases involving interpretative disagreements, the Oversight Committee’s decisions were upheld as being within jurisdiction and procedurally sound.
The petitions were accordingly disposed of, with the Court affirming the primacy of expert evaluation and the procedural framework established by the CLAT Consortium.
[Shivraj Sharma v Consortium of NLU, W.P.(C) 4157/2025, decided on 23-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Rishab Parakh and Mr. Prathambir Agarwal, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr. Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of NLU.
