Supreme Court directs NLUs to revise CLAT answer key, delete flawed questions and reissue results within two weeks

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard appeals by a CLAT candidate against a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court challenging alterations to the Common Law Admission Test answer key and the High Court’s directions on award of marks. The appeals arose from a batch of writ petitions and Letter Patent Appeals that questioned the framing, correctness and suitability of multiple objective questions in the CLAT 2024 paper set by the Consortium of National Law Universities (Consortium).

The Court allowed the appeals in part and issued specific directions to the Consortium. It expressed “deep anguish” at “the callous and casual manner in which the Respondent No.1 has been framing questions” and observed that, while courts were ordinarily reluctant to interfere in academic matters, intervention became necessary where academic conduct “adversely affects the career aspirations of lakhs of students.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In academic matters, the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere, inasmuch as they do not possess the requisite expertise for the same. However, when the academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely affects the career aspirations of lakhs of students, the Court is left with no alternative but to interfere.” The Court found that six specific questions (Nos. 56, 77, 78, 88, 115 and 116) required remedial action — awarding marks in some instances and deleting questions in others — and directed the Consortium to amend the answer key, revise marksheets, re-publish the final list of candidates and commence counselling within two weeks. The Court also remarked that candidates who selected logically supportable options should not be penalised where the reading material allowed such conclusions, and described the Consortium’s stance in places as “amazing” given the expectation that it be led by scholars.

Background The dispute arose from challenges to the CLAT 2024 question paper and the Consortium’s answer key. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had altered answers and ordered relief in respect of several questions; those directions were assailed before the Supreme Court by the appellant candidate and resisted by the Consortium and other parties. Senior counsel for the parties included Shri K.K. Venugopal and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the appellant, and Shri Raj Shekhar Rao for the Consortium. The Supreme Court undertook a question‑by‑question examination.

For Question No.56 (environmental duties), the Court held that the material itself stated that “both the State and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources,” and directed that positive marks be awarded to candidates who chose either the option recognising duties on both State and citizens or the option reflecting State duty and a citizen’s right against climate change; only clearly incorrect options were to attract negative marking. For Question No.77 (contract with a minor signatory), the Court found that the supplied material enabled a candidate, by logic and reasoning, to conclude the agreement was “voidable” and directed marks in favour of option (b). The Court agreed with the High Court on Question No.78 and left that finding undisturbed.

On Question No.88 (a seating arrangement), the Court noted parity with another deleted question and directed deletion of Question No.88. Questions Nos.115 and 116 (wage‑gap based numerical questions) were held to demand detailed mathematical analysis unsuitable for an objective test; the Court set aside the High Court’s partial relief and directed deletion of both questions across all sets to ensure equal footing. The Court emphasised fairness in marking, ordered amendment of the answer key and marksheets, and required the Consortium to notify the final list and begin counselling within two weeks. The Court indicated that a previously constituted committee on CLAT conduct would be placed before a bench seized of related pending matters.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 714 (Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No. 12786 of 2025) Case Title: Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri K.K. Venugopal, Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan (Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Shri Raj Shekhar Rao (Senior Counsel) for Respondent No.1; Shri Dhanesh Relan for Respondent No.2; Shri Balbir Singh and other learned counsel for intervenors