JOBS-CAREER
The case was brought before the court by a candidate who appeared for the CLAT-UG 2025 examination on December 1 and challenged the answers to five specific questions. The Delhi High Court has ruled that courts are not mandated to take a “hands-off” approach when the answer key to an examination contains demonstrable errors, emphasising that the injustice caused to candidates must be corrected. Justice Jyoti Singh, in a significant ruling, stated that there is no absolute prohibition against judicial scrutiny of answer keys, even when an expert committee has been involved. “Therefore, the law does not commend a total ‘hands off’ approach and in exceptional cases where questions are found to be demonstrably wrong, the resultant injustice to a candidate must be redressed and undone,” the Court said, as quoted by Live Law. The case was brought before the court by a candidate who appeared for the CLAT-UG 2025 examination on December 1 and challenged the answers to five specific questions. The court found errors in two of these questions to be “demonstrably clear” and ruled that ignoring these mistakes would be unjust, not only to the petitioner but also to other candidates. “Accordingly, it is directed that the result of the Petitioner will be revised to award marks to him for Question No.14 in accordance with the scheme of marking. Since Court has upheld option ‘C’ as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Expert Committee, benefit cannot be restricted only to the Petitioner and will extend to all candidates who have opted for option ‘C’,” the Court said. As part of its order, the court directed that the petitioner’s result be revised to award marks for Question No. 14, in line with the expert committee’s conclusion that option ‘C’ was the correct answer. The benefit of this revision would also extend to all candidates who chose option ‘C’. Additionally, Question No. 100, which was advised to be excluded by the expert committee, will be removed from the final evaluation, and the petitioner’s result will be revised accordingly. In response to the ruling, the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) opposed the plea, defending the rigorous process through which the final answer key was finalised. The Consortium stated that an expert committee had thoroughly examined objections before finalising the answer key, which had been published on December 7. None
What’s New
Spotlight
Advertisement
