Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice SG Dige and Justice Advait M Sethna directed that any selection process of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) based on the disputed answer key shall remain subject to the final outcome of this writ petition.                  

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024). 

What was the Background of Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities Case?  

• The case involves a writ petition filed by Ms. Anam Khan, appearing in person, against the Consortium of National Law Universities. 
• The petitioner challenges the correctness of the answer key published by the respondent for the competitive examination, CLAT. 
• She contends that the grievance mechanism established by the respondent is financially prohibitive due to an objectionable fee of ₹1,000/- per question, which prevented her from raising her objections. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court has directed that any selection process based on the disputed answer key shall remain subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. 
• Notice has been issued to the respondent, and their counsel has waived service while undertaking to file a vakalatnama. 
• The matter is scheduled to be heard by the Regular Court on 14th January 2025. 
• The legal issue raised pertains to the fairness and accessibility of grievance mechanisms in public examinations and the reasonableness of fees imposed for challenging answer key discrepancies. 

What was the Timeline of CLAT 2025?

What are the Controversies Surrounding CLAT 2025? 

• Delhi High Court 
  • A 17-year-old candidate who appeared in CLAT UG examination filed a petition in Delhi High Court with name of Aditya Singh (Minor) v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024). 
  • The candidate challenged the answer key released by the Consortium arguing that some of the answers were incorrect. 
  • A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh found errors in two questions to be demonstrably clear and shutting a blind eye to the same would-be injustice to the Petitioner. 
  • The single judge bench hence directed the Consortium to revisit the merit list. 
  • Pursuant to this the Consortium filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. However, the division bench did not intervene with the order of the single judge bench. 
  • The Consortium has however, intimated the candidates that it would be approaching the Supreme Court at the earliest possible date. 
  • Consequently, the counselling date and the release of first admission list scheduled on 26^th December was delayed. 
  • Detailed notification released by the Consortium can be accessed here:  Official Notification  
• Supreme Court 
  • On 9^th December 2024, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea challenging the CLAT-PG 2025 results and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court instead in the case of Anam Khan and another v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024). 
  • The bench, comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, noted that the Supreme Court should not be the court of first instance and advised the petitioners to first approach the High Court. 
  • The CJI highlighted that intervention by the Supreme Court in such cases has historically caused significant delays in the release of exam results. 
  • The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, granting the petitioners the liberty to seek appropriate remedies from the High Court. 
  • Addressing the challenge to the Rs. 1,000 fee per objection, the CJI remarked that the fee was reasonable given the expenses involved in processing objections. 
  • Petitioners alleged errors in 12 questions in the provisional answer key for the CLAT-PG 2025 exam, which was released on December 2. 
• Madhya Pradesh High Court 
  • The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a notice to the Consortium of National Law Universities regarding a plea challenging the answer key of the CLAT-PG 2025 exam with the name of Ayush Agrawal v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024). 
  • The petitioner seeks reconsideration of the ₹1,000 fee charged per objection to the provisional answer key and rectification of errors in the final answer key without delay. 
  • The division bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Gajendra Singh directed notice issuance to the respondent via regular process and email within three days, returnable in three weeks. 
  • The court directed that any selection made by the Consortium pursuant to the final answer key would be subject to the final disposal of the petition. 
  • The petition alleges procedural lapses, errors in the final answer key, and unequal treatment of candidates during the CLAT 2025 exam, violating Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21A (Right to Education) of the Indian Constitution. 
  • The matter has been listed for further hearing on 8th January 2025.