Delhi High Court Upholds Revision Of CLAT-2025 Results For Fair Evaluation

Rejecting the Consortium of National Law Universities' request for an interim order, the Delhi High Court upheld a previous ruling that mandated a revision of the CLAT-2025 result due to inaccuracies in the answer key. The appeal, handled by Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, centered on a prior judgment that found faults with the answers to two specific questions on the test. The court's decision allows the consortium to proceed with announcing the results, adhering to the corrections specified by the single judge.

The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, found themselves in agreement with the initial judgment after a thorough review of two contentious questions within the test. Highlighting their stance, the court remarked, "Single judge examined two questions carefully... Prima facie we concur with the said view," further indicating that the consortium could move forward with the results as per the single judge’s directive, signifying no need for an interim alteration.

The controversy began when a CLAT candidate challenged the answer key released by the consortium on December 7, pinpointing errors in two questions. The single judge's ruling on December 20 sided with the appellant, determining the identified mistakes were unmistakably evident. Ignoring these discrepancies, the judge noted, would result in an unfair outcome for the aspirants. This assertion laid the groundwork for the higher court's refusal to modify the initial verdict.

The matter's significance was underlined by the court’s decision to schedule a follow-up hearing on January 7, 2025. This timeline gives the consortium a clear directive to correct the specified errors in the test's answer key before finalizing the results. The high court's stance reinforces the importance of accuracy and fairness in the examination process, ensuring that all candidates are evaluated on an equal and just basis.

Concluding, the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant an interim order to the Consortium of National Law Universities underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining integrity within educational assessments. By affirming the single judge's decision to correct the CLAT-2025 answer key, the court has prioritized the rights of students to a fair evaluation, setting a precedent for handling similar disputes in the future. This decision not only affects the immediate outcome of the CLAT-2025 but also signals to educational institutions the necessity of meticulousness in their examination procedures.