Delhi HC Directs NLU Consortium to Revise CLAT UG 2025 Entrance Exam Marksheet Within 4 Weeks

Updated on Apr 24, 2025 23:38

Delhi High Court has ordered CLAT exam organizers to fix and revise all CLAT 2025 results within 4 weeks, after finding mistakes in evaluation process.

revise-clat-ug-2025-entrance-exam-marksheet

Kolkata: Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to revise the marksheet and reissue the final list of selected candidates for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) undergraduate exam within four weeks. The order came after the court examined 17 disputed questions in the entrance exam. After these, candidates are expected to gain the most from the revised corrected answers of four questions.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined a batch of petitions filed by CLAT aspirants challenging the answer key released by the Consortium of NLUs. While the bench accepts some objections raised by candidates but rejected others.

CLAT UG 2025 exam was conducted on December 01, 2024, followed by the release of a provisional answer key on December 02, 2024. Candidates were given till 04:00 PM on December 03, 2024, to submit objections. After considering these objections, the final answer key for all four paper sets was published on December 07, 2024.

The Consortium acknowledged errors in two additional questions of CLAT exam 2025. They said one question had the wrong answer marked as correct in the final answer key without undergoing proper review or correction. The Consortium admitted this mistake led to the wrong answer being marked as correct in the official CLAT answer key.

The Consortium further clarified that candidates could not be held responsible for either correct or incorrect responses to this question, acknowledging that all examinees who attempted it should receive due credit. Regarding another disputed question, the Consortium admitted to an error that had affected multiple question sets distributed to test-takers.

The court consequently ordered that all affected candidates who received the three flawed question sets must be awarded full marks for those particular questions. Separately, among the 17 disputed questions, three had been reviewed by an oversight committee, and the bench endorsed the committee's finalized answers as correct.

Regarding another disputed question, the bench declined to intervene, noting that the petitioner had failed to raise objections during the designated challenge window after the provisional answer key's release. The court observed that such inaction precluded judicial interference, as modifying the final answer key at this stage could unfairly disadvantage candidates who had provided correct responses.