07 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a significant ruling on May 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed "deep anguish" regarding the "callous and casual manner" in which the Consortium of National Law Universities (Respondent No. 1) has been framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). The apex court, in the case of Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v/s Consortium of National Law Universities & Another (Civil Appeal No. of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No. 12786 of 2025), delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, ordered the re-evaluation of marks for several questions and the deletion of others, highlighting a need for greater scrutiny in the conduct of this crucial entrance examination for prestigious National Law Universities.

The appeals challenged a judgment by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court concerning the CLAT 2024 examination. The Supreme Court observed that while courts generally refrain from interfering in academic matters due to a lack of expertise, intervention becomes necessary when actions of academicians adversely affect the career aspirations of a large number of students.

Previous Concerns and Ongoing Oversight:

The Court recalled its previous judgment in Disha Panchal and Others vs. Union of India (2018), where it had constituted a committee to investigate shortcomings in CLAT's conduct, including issues with infrastructure and the practice of entrusting the examination to different Law Universities annually. The Court noted that the committee's report is still pending before another bench.

Scrutiny of Specific Questions:

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed six specific questions (Question Nos. 56, 77, 78, 88, 115, and 116) that were at the heart of the appeals.

• Question No. 56 (Environmental Law): The High Court had determined that only option (d) was correct. However, the Supreme Court found that both option (c) – "Both the state and citizens have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources" – and option (d) were correct based on the provided passage, which explicitly stated that "both the State and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources." The Court expressed "amazement" at Respondent No.1's stance that only "residents" and not "citizens" was appropriate. As a result, the Supreme Court directed the Consortium to award positive marks to candidates who selected either option (c) or (d) and apply negative marks only to those who selected options (a) or (b).
• Question No. 77 (Contract Law - Minor's Agreement): The High Court had deemed this question "Out of Syllabus" and ordered its exclusion, stating that it required prior legal knowledge. The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that a candidate could determine the correct answer (b) – "A voidable agreement" – by applying logic and reason to the provided material. The Court's reasoning was that an agreement involving a minor signatory would be "voidable" at the minor's option. Therefore, the Supreme Court directed that candidates who selected option (b) be awarded positive marks, while those who chose options (a), (c), or (d) receive negative marks.
• Question No. 78 (Contract Law - Void Agreement Scenarios): For this question, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's finding that option (c) – "An agreement to pay 10 lakhs on getting a government job" – was the correct answer for a scenario most likely to result in a void agreement.
• Question No. 88 (Seating Arrangement/Logical Reasoning): The Supreme Court noted that Respondent No. 1 had already deleted a similar Question No. 85. Finding no "significant difference" between Question No. 85 and Question No. 88, the Court ruled that if one was deleted, the other should be as well. The Supreme Court therefore directed the deletion of Question No. 88.
• Question Nos. 115 and 116 (Data Interpretation): The Supreme Court ordered the deletion of both Question No. 115 and Question No. 116. For Question No. 115, the Court found that answering it would require "detailed mathematics analysis," which is not expected in an objective test. Since Question No. 116 was based on the information provided in Question No. 115, its deletion was deemed a "necessary corollary." The Court further directed that Question No. 116 be deleted from all sets to ensure fairness among all candidates.

Implications and Future Directions:

The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the critical need for accuracy and clarity in competitive examinations like CLAT. The Consortium of National Law Universities has been directed to amend the answer key, revise the mark sheets, and re-publish the final results in accordance with the Supreme Court's modifications. This ruling sends a clear message that organizations responsible for conducting such high-stakes examinations must uphold the highest standards to safeguard the academic future of countless students.