CLAT UG 2025: Delhi High Court Identifies Errors in 4 Questions, Directs NLU Consortium to Revise Results Within 4 Weeks

CLAT UG 2025: Delhi High Court Identifies Errors in 4 Questions, Directs NLU Consortium to Revise Results Within 4 Weeks

Judgment follows multiple petitions over answer key discrepancies; revised marksheets and final list of selected candidates to be published soon

New Delhi, April 23, 2025 — In a significant development for CLAT UG 2025 aspirants, the Delhi High Court has ruled that four questions in this year’s Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) contained errors. The Court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to revise the marksheets of candidates and republish the final merit list within four weeks.

The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who held the Consortium accountable for inaccuracies in the answer key and instructed them to rectify the results accordingly.

Background: Widespread Concerns Over CLAT UG 2025 Evaluation

The matter came before the High Court following a batch of petitions transferred from various courts across India, including the Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts. These were consolidated into a single case after the Supreme Court allowed the Consortium's plea to avoid parallel proceedings. The Court's scrutiny was prompted by an earlier ruling by Justice Jyoti Singh in December 2024, who had partially upheld the claims of a candidate, Aditya Singh.

Delhi High Court’s Verdict: Errors Identified in Four Questions

After a thorough analysis, the High Court identified errors in four specific questions from the master question booklet:

1. Question No. 5

   • Error: Incorrect option provided in the official answer key.
   • Correction: Option (c) is the correct answer.
   • Direction: All candidates who selected option (c) will be awarded marks.

2. Question No. 77

   • Error: The question was found to be out of syllabus.
   • Correction: To be excluded entirely.
   • Direction: Students who answered correctly will lose the mark; those who answered incorrectly will receive +0.25 to compensate for negative marking.

3. Question No. 115

   • Error: Option (a) in the provisional answer key was incorrect.
   • Correction: The correct answer is option (d) — “None of these.”
   • Direction: Full marks to be awarded to all candidates who attempted this question.

4. Question No. 116

   • Error: A discrepancy existed in Sets B, C, and D.
   • Correction: Affected candidates in these sets to be awarded marks accordingly.
   • Direction: No change for Set A candidates.

Court Declines to Intervene in Other Question Disputes

The Court refused to interfere with the evaluation of other disputed questions, specifically questions 14, 37, 49, 56, 78, 79, 80, 81, 88, 91, 93, and 97, stating that no further errors were found upon review.

Impact of the Judgment

The Consortium has been directed to:

• Revise all marksheets in line with the Court’s analysis
• Renotify the final list of selected candidates
• Complete this process within four weeks from the date of judgment

This direction will affect all candidates who attempted the erroneous questions, including those who were part of the petitions and others who stand to benefit from the evaluation corrections.

Legal Representation and Proceedings

Numerous advocates represented the petitioners, including:

• Niyati Kohli, Rishab Parakh, and Prathambir Agarwal for Shivraj Sharma
• Dhanesh Relan, Arjeet Gaur, Naveen Malik, Suryansh Jamwal, and Sakshi Arora for Aditya Singh
• Senior Advocate Ajay Vohra, along with Aniket D Agrawal and Ram Krishna Rao, appeared for Hardik and Harshit Garg
• Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao led the defense for the Consortium of NLUs

Petitioner-in-person Yajat Sen also argued his own case.

Separate Petitions for CLAT PG Under Consideration

The same bench of the Delhi High Court is also hearing separate petitions concerning the CLAT PG 2025 examination, which remain pending and are being reviewed independently.

Conclusion: A Landmark Ruling for Law Aspirants

This ruling by the Delhi High Court is likely to bring relief and clarity to thousands of CLAT UG aspirants who raised concerns about unfair evaluation. With the Consortium now under judicial directive to amend the errors, the revised merit list is expected to offer a more accurate and transparent outcome for all candidates.