CLAT UG 2025: SC 'anguished' over NLU consortium 'casual manner' to frame questions
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed anguish over the "casual manner" in which the Consortium of National Law Universities was framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test . CLAT UG 2025: SC 'anguished' over NLU consortium 'casual manner' to frame questions
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, which pointed out mistakes related to some of the questions in the CLAT UG-2025, was hearing a plea filed by an aspirant challenging the Delhi High Court's April 23 verdict.
The high court had previously directed the consortium to revise the marksheets and republish the final list of selected candidates of CLAT UG-2025 within four weeks.
"At the outset, we must express our anguish at the casual manner in which the respondent number one has been framing the questions for the CLAT examination which involves the career aspirations of lakhs of students in the country," the top court said.
The CLAT 2025 for admissions to five-year law courses in national law universities was held on December 1 last year and the results were declared on December 7.
The petitioner claimed being aggrieved by the high court verdict directing revision of marksheets.
The top court said in matters of academia, court was always "very slow" in interfering as it did not possess the expertise in such issues.
"When academicians themselves err in such a manner which affects the careers of lakhs of students, the court is left with no other option," it added.
The bench said it was clear from the high court's verdict that several questions were found not suitable and, therefore, the high court passed an order in relation to the several questions.
The apex court dealt with six questions in the matter.
On one of the questions over environmental issues, the bench referred to the answer key which said the fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural resources was only upon the state.
"It is totally wrong," the bench said, "time and again, the apex court has emphasised the duty of the state as well as the citizens to preserve and protect the natural resources".
It directed the consortium to give a positive marking to all such candidates who chose option C and D in the answer key.
The bench said those who chose option A and B, would be marked negatively.
The apex court further set aside the high court's direction for deleting another question and ordered the consortium to give marks to those who chose option B in the answer key.
The bench was in agreement with the high court on another question and said C was the correct option.
On two more questions, the bench observed the consortium on its own deleted one of them.
The top court found "not much difference between the two" and ordered deletion of the other.
Two more questions one entailing a detailed mathematical analysis were ordered to be deleted.
The bench referred to its June 2018 order in another case highlighting improper conduct of CLAT 2018.
In the judgement, it said, the top court directed the Centre to appoint a committee to look into the issue and take remedial measures including penal action, if any, against the body entrusted with the task.
Though the judgement came in June 2018, it noted, the Centre took no steps.
The bench then issued a notice to the Centre for its response and posted the matter on May 16.
During the hearing, the bench asked why a permanent mechanism for conducting CLAT did not exist.
On April 30, the apex court stayed the high court verdict directing the consortium to revise the marksheets and republish the final list of selected candidates of CLAT UG-2025 within four weeks.
Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts, alleging errors in the questions but on February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all cases to the Delhi High Court for a "consistent adjudication" after the Consortium of National Law Universities filed transfer petitions.
On December 20, 2024, a Delhi High Court single judge bench directed the consortium to revise the result of CLAT-2025 over the errors in the answer key and then following a challenge the court's division bench on April 23 accepted certain objections of the candidates while rejecting some of them.
The high court is yet to hear pleas challenging the questions of CLAT PG-2025.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC sets aside govt order barring candidate from govt service
Cuttack: The Orissa high court has set aside the Odisha govt's 2017 order that permanently barred a SC candidate, Dibakar Patra, from all future govt employment for procedural lapses in a judicial recruitment process. The court, however, upheld the cancellation of his candidature for the post of civil judge. Patra, a non-judicial court employee, had applied for the post of civil judge pursuant to a notification issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) in 2017. However, he failed to route his application through the proper channel — his employer — and did not obtain a mandatory 'No Objection Certificate' before entering the recruitment process. Citing this violation, the govt cancelled his candidature and permanently debarred him from future govt service via an order dated June 30, 2017. Aggrieved, Patra approached the high court the same year, seeking redress. Delivering the verdict on June 17, a division bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and MS Sahoo noted that while Patra's actions were procedurally incorrect, the punishment meted out was "too harsh to be sustained." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain Knee pain | search ads Find Now Undo "As a layman, what he has done is wrong and therefore, he cannot be crushed by a sledge hammer, when a mild pinch would do the rightful," the bench observed, invoking the principle of proportionality. The court noted that the impugned govt order was not a "speaking order" and lacked specific reasons to justify such a severe punishment. "No special reasons are assigned to justify a permanent embargo as if a heinous sin is committed by the candidate," the bench stated, adding that his mistake did not reflect a guilty mind or serious misconduct. While agreeing with the state counsel that Patra's entry into the recruitment process was vitiated by illegality and hence could not result in appointment, the court rejected the govt's decision to permanently debar him from all future public employment. The bench clarified that Patra is entitled to participate in future recruitment processes if otherwise eligible. "Errors do occur in any human transaction... His case is miles away from the precincts of penal provision," the judgment said. The high court thus quashed the June 30, 2017 govt order only to the extent it permanently barred Patra from public employment, offering the petitioner a fresh chance to pursue govt service.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Invoking anti-gangster law to counter one communal violence incident triggered by a social media post is misuse: SC
The Supreme Court has concluded that the use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act — a law meant to counter organised crime — in a solitary case of communal disturbance caused by an 'incendiary' social media post, amounts to a misuse of the stringent penal law. The recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, came after the court heard an appeal filed by people accused under the State law for mobbing and vandalising the business establishment of a man who posted content derogatory to a particular religion on social media. 'When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose,' Justice Mehta wrote. 'Colourable exercise of power' The judgment said the application of the Gangsters Act in the current case bore the 'hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives'. The court reminded the State government of Article 21 of the Constitution that 'no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'. Justice Mehta observed that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, reasonable, and not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquired even greater significance when an 'extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions' like the U.P. Gangsters Act was invoked by the State, he said. 'The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,' Justice Mehta emphasised. 'Need solid evidence' Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards like the U.P. Gangsters Act, must be invoked only if the evidence met a threshold of credibility and substantiality. 'The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity… When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions,' the top court held. Quashing the FIR and allowing the appeal, the court said the case failed to meet the 'essential threshold' required to invoke the Gangsters Act. It had rested 'largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity,' the court said.
The Wire
4 hours ago
- The Wire
In Critique of Draft Rohith Vemula Bill, UN Experts Urge Stronger Safeguards for SC, ST Students
New Delhi: Two United Nations special rapporteurs have issued a detailed statement raising concerns and offering recommendations on the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill proposed by the Karnataka government and urged the government to consider them. Ashwini K.P., special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, and Nicolas Levrat, special rapporteur on minority issues, noted that while the Bill aims to combat caste-based discrimination in higher education, it lacks key human rights protections and clarity in legal definitions. The draft legislation of the law, named after Rohith Vemula, seeks to criminalise discrimination against students from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and religious minorities in educational institutions. The special rapporteurs come under the purview of the 'special procedures' of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC); they are 'independent human rights experts' who are mandated by the UN to report and advise on 'human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective'. Under their special mandate from the UNHRC, they have highlighted 'several human rights considerations that should be considered during the ongoing development of the legislation'. UN concerns on the draft Bill The special rapporteurs stated that the draft Bill does not mention 'specific protection for Dalits and Adivasis against disproportionate discrimination in various areas' and urged the drafting committee to 'explicitly' include provisions for their protection. Ashwini K.P., replying to an email questionnaire by The Wire, said: 'The current draft clubs OBCs, SC, ST and minority communities together. All of them face marginalisation, but it's crucial to understand and recognise the heterogeneous nature of their experiences. The persistent and systematic forms of discrimination that Dalit and Adivasi students face require explicit acknowledgement.' They also claimed that there is a lack of definition for 'direct or indirect discrimination', which could result in the law failing to provide 'comprehensive protection' to those affected. It could also lead to misuse of the law and oppression of activities unrelated to the law, including those in the 'defence of human rights'. The draft includes provisions to imprison a person convicted of discriminating against SC, ST, OBC and minority students for up to one year or impose a fine of Rs 10,000. Heads of higher education institutions will also be held liable, and the institutions may lose government aid or grants in case of such convictions. The punitive nature of the draft law was also criticised. They warned that it may 'undermine the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial or ethnic groups'. Focusing on addressing the social roots of caste-based discrimination, the rapporteurs recommended placing greater emphasis on effective 'preventive measures' such as orientation programmes and educational awareness campaigns. To ensure effective implementation, they also recommended setting up a grievance redressal mechanism, ensuring 'protection for whistleblowers' and introducing 'accountability measures' for educational institutions that fail to comply. The special rapporteurs also claimed that the Bill's drafting process has not been sufficiently deliberative and has not included the 'voices of those who may experience caste-based discrimination and harassment, including Dalit and Adivasi students, scholars and activists'. They called upon the committee to introduce provisions that make the process more transparent, consultative and participatory. Finally, the rapporteurs noted the need for diversity and proportional representation in the drafting committee itself and urged that there be 'proportionate caste, gender and geographical representation from the state of Karnataka in the committee'. The political equation The move to draft this law comes after leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, wrote a letter to the three Congress-led state governments in April urging them to enact the law that was promised in the party's 2024 Lok Sabha election manifesto. Following this, Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah instructed his legal adviser to prepare a draft of the Bill. 'The Union government brushed the incident under the carpet although it was clear that Rohith Vemula was targeted because of his [Dalit] caste,' said minister Priyank Kharge confirming that he provided inputs for drafting the Bill. However, Ashwini claimed that the Indian government 'has not approached the UNHRC or any other international bodies for recommendations'. Meanwhile, the BJP's leader of opposition in the Karnataka legislative council, Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, agreed that caste-based discrimination should be banned but questioned whether such discrimination can be addressed solely through legislation. This is not the first time that such a demand has been raised. In 2019, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi – the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi – filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding that the government enforce the 2012 University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations that aim to protect vulnerable students from discrimination in educational institutions. The UGC guidelines also have a specific definition of 'discrimination' and various kinds of discriminatory behaviour, but in January 2025, after the case was heard only for the second time, the UGC released new draft regulations intended to replace the 2012 ones. N. Sukumar, a professor at Delhi University, noted in an interview to Scroll that in the new draft, 'these terms are loosely defined'. When the various aspects of the problem are not properly defined, 'there is hardly any scope to address the issues of caste on the campus.' Rohith Vemula and a legacy of institutional violence Vemula, a PhD scholar belonging to Dalit community at the University of Hyderabad, was among five students suspended in September 2015 following a complaint filed by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP's ideological fountainhead. His monthly research fellowship of Rs 25,000 was also discontinued, reportedly due to his activities in the Ambedkar Students' Association. The ABVP's complaint was forwarded by then-Union minister Bandaru Dattatreya to then-human resource development minister Smriti Irani, who subsequently asked the university to take appropriate action. Following their suspension and removal from university housing, the students began a relay hunger strike and stayed in a temporary tent on campus. On January 17, 2016, Vemula died by suicide, leaving behind a note in which he expressed a deep sense of disillusionment and described his birth as a 'fatal accident'. His death was one amongst numerous such incidents in the past two decades where a Dalit student was allegedly pushed over the edge and died by suicide. Activists consider these to be 'institutional murders', since every part of the education institution – including the student body, the faculty and the administration – are said to work in tandem to make sure that caste hierarchies are upheld and no voices can be raised against it. This leaves the student completely cornered. Some say that caste-based discrimination, humiliating abuse and alienation by peers have pushed students like Payal Tadvi, Darshan Solanki, Ayush Ashna and Varad Sanjay Nerkar over the edge. They were allegedly targeted for belonging to a certain caste and viewed as not fit to be in such institutions. There are no avenues for redressal of complaints as well, since the administration too engages in suppressing their voices, activists say. While a few of these cases received media attention, many others were recorded through an independent study by the Delhi-based Insight Foundation, led by educationist Anoop Kumar. Path ahead Ashwini claims that 'currently there is no specific legislation in India which addresses caste-based discrimination in higher education for Dalit and Adivasi students. While some mechanisms such as grievance redressal cells exist in colleges and universities, there is no exclusive framework to protect students from marginalised backgrounds in academic spaces.' Therefore, although some critics believe that the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill is a politically motivated move by the Congress, Ashwini believes that 'the intention behind the Rohith Vemula Act is to fill this gap and ensure a safe space for students coming from marginalised backgrounds'. Such a law becomes crucial in an education system where, according to her, 'student suicides among marginalised communities highlight the disproportionate discrimination faced by them'. She claims that there is a pattern of structural exclusion and systematic discrimination against Dalit and Adivasi students, and that this legislation is important to create a 'safer academic environment' for them. But critics also raise questions of political motivation and appropriation of the long-fought struggles of activists like Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi in creating an equitable and safe educational space by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress. According to the UNHRC special rapporteurs, the draft law has the potential to make effective changes – but this can only be realised if such expert criticism and recommendations are taken into account and the drafting process becomes more publicly participatory. Tamoghna Chakraborty is an intern at The Wire. If you know someone – a friend or a family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. The TeleManas helpline, a government helpline, functions 24×7, its numbers are 1-800 891-4416 or 14416. You could also take them to the nearest hospital.
