(Civil Appeal No. 6907 of 2025), delivered on 07 May 2025.
2025 7 SCR 55
The case primarily addressed the correctness of questions and answer keys for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).
Core Issue and Supreme Court’s Stance The appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding multiple questions in the CLAT examination12. The Supreme Court expressed deep anguish regarding the callous and casual manner in which the Consortium of National Law Universities (Respondent No.1) had been framing questions for CLAT, which is a crucial examination for entry into prestigious National Law Universities34. While courts are generally reluctant to interfere in academic matters due to lack of expertise, the Court stated that it had no alternative but to intervene when academicians’ actions adversely affect the career aspirations of lakhs of students5. The Court also recalled its previous observations in Disha Panchal and Others v. Union of India, which highlighted improper conduct of CLAT and suggested revisiting the practice of entrusting monitoring to different law universities each year6….
Specific Questions in Dispute and the Court’s Findings The Supreme Court examined six specific questions (Nos. 56, 77, 78, 88, 115, and 116) where the High Court had already made findings9.
• Question No. 56 (Fundamental Duty to Protect Natural Resources):
◦ The question concerned whose duty it was to preserve and protect natural resources based on a provided passage10.
◦ The High Court had concluded that “State has the duty to maintain ecological balance and citizens have the right against climate change” (option d) was the only correct answer1112.
◦ The Supreme Court, however, found that the passage explicitly stated, “both the State and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources”13.
◦ The Court criticised Respondent No.1’s stance that “citizens” (option c) was inappropriate because the passage used “residents,” stating it was “amazed” by such an argument from an institution led by legal scholars1415.
◦ Consequently, the Supreme Court directed positive marks be awarded to candidates who selected either option (c) or (d), and negative marks only for those who chose (a) or (b)15.
• Question No. 77 (Agreement Involving a Minor):
◦ The question asked about an agreement made by an adult involving a minor signatory16. The High Court had excluded this question as “Out of Syllabus,” deeming it required prior legal knowledge17.
◦ The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that based on the provided material, a candidate could distinguish between void and voidable agreements18.
◦ The Court held that such an agreement would be a “voidable agreement” (option b), which would be rendered void ab initio only if the minor chose to reject it19.
◦ The Court directed positive marks for those who selected option (b) and negative marks for other choices20.
• Question No. 78 (Scenario Resulting in a Void Agreement):
◦ This question also used the same reading material as Question No. 7720.
◦ The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that “An agreement to pay 10 lakhs on getting a government job” (option c) was the correct answer, as such an agreement would most likely be void2122.
• Question No. 88 (Seating Arrangement):
◦ The Supreme Court noted that this question was similar to Question No. 85, which Respondent No.1 had already deleted2324.
◦ Finding no significant difference, the Court ruled that if Question No. 85 was deleted, Question No. 88 should also be deleted2425.
◦ The Court therefore directed Respondent No.1 to delete Question No. 8825.
• Question No. 115 (Agricultural Wages Calculation):
◦ This question required detailed mathematical analysis based on the provided text to calculate women’s wages in Goa2526.
◦ The Court found such complexity “is not expected in an objective test”27.
◦ The Supreme Court directed Respondent No.1 to delete Question No. 11527.
• Question No. 116 (Least Wages to Women Workers):
◦ This question was based on information from Question No. 11528.
◦ As Question No. 115 was deleted, the Court ruled that Question No. 116 must also be deleted as a necessary corollary to ensure fairness across all exam sets2829.
◦ The Court directed Respondent No.1 to delete Question No. 11630.
Conclusion and Directions The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court’s judgment. It directed Respondent No.1 to amend the answer key, revise the mark sheets, and re-publish/notify the final list of candidates forthwith, commencing counselling within two weeks of the order30.
