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
Hans India
20 minutes ago
- Hans India
Gujarat govt amends Factory Work Laws, allows 12-hour shift and night duties for women
Gandhinagar: The Gujarat government has introduced a sweeping set of labour reforms through an ordinance that allows factory workers to clock up to 12 hours a day, up from the previous 9-hour limit, while retaining the weekly cap of 48 working hours. The move is part of the Factories (Gujarat Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, which was issued on July 1 by the Labour, Skill Development and Employment Department, in the absence of a state assembly session. The ordinance is aimed at improving industrial flexibility to boost investments, productivity, and job creation in Gujarat's manufacturing sector. Under the revised Section 54 of the Factories Act, daily work shifts can now officially stretch to 12 hours, subject to written consent from workers and adherence to weekly hour limits. In addition, the uninterrupted work period can be extended from five to six hours, pending formal notification. Increased provisions for overtime compensation have also been included: workers will now be paid double wages for extra hours, and the quarterly overtime ceiling has been lifted from 75 to 125 hours, again requiring voluntary worker participation. A key highlight of the amendment is the provision allowing women to work night shifts (between 7 pm and 6 am), a step seen as a push for gender inclusivity in industrial workplaces. However, this will be subject to 16 stringent safeguards, including round-the-clock CCTV surveillance, female security staff, a minimum of 10 women per shift, and secure transportation. Crucially, no woman can be assigned night duties without written consent, and protection from harassment is mandatory. The Factories (Gujarat Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, introduces significant changes to labour regulations in the state, primarily aimed at enhancing industrial efficiency and employment flexibility. Key provisions include increasing the permissible daily working hours from 9 to 12, with a continued weekly cap of 48 hours, subject to the worker's written consent. It also extends the maximum uninterrupted work period from five to six hours, and raises the quarterly overtime limit from 75 to 125 hours, with mandatory double-wage compensation.
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Denied toilet access, made to kneel overnight: US deportee says he was tortured in El Salvador prison
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was supposed to be safe. In 2019, a US immigration judge ruled that the 29-year-old Salvadoran could not be deported to his home country, citing credible fears that local gangs there would persecute him and his family. But in March 2025, the Trump administration deported him anyway. What followed has triggered a political and legal firestorm over the administration's immigration enforcement, reaching all the way to the US Supreme Court. The White House has repeatedly claimed that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, the Salvadoran gang the US government has designated a foreign terrorist organisation. US President Donald Trump, speaking last month, declared that Abrego Garcia 'will never live' in the United States again. Yet multiple judges, including one on the Supreme Court, have ruled that he was deported in error and that the government is obliged to help 'facilitate' his return to Maryland, where he had lived since 2012. That court order came only after Abrego Garcia had already spent nearly three harrowing months inside El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, where he was sent immediately after his wrongful deportation. 'Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn't leave,' one official reportedly told him upon arrival, according to court documents filed by his lawyers. Held in an overcrowded, windowless cell with bright lights on 24 hours a day, Abrego Garcia says he was forced to sleep on a metal bunk with no mattress and was denied access to a bathroom, eventually soiling himself. He said he lost 14 kg in two weeks. In his testimony, he lists harrowing details. Upon arrival, he says he was kicked and hit repeatedly, leaving his body bruised and swollen. He and 20 others were made to kneel overnight, with guards striking anyone who collapsed, he claims. At times, he was told he would be transferred to cells with known gang members who would 'tear' him apart. He also said he heard screaming through the night. He saw prisoners assaulting each other in nearby cells. He was told by prison staff that his tattoos would mark him for death—until they later admitted they weren't gang-related at all. According to the new court filings, Salvadoran prison officials determined that Abrego Garcia was not affiliated with any gang. The Trump administration initially brushed aside the deportation as an 'administrative error.' But after weeks of legal pressure, it abruptly flew Abrego Garcia back to the US last month—not to release him, but to indict him. He is now in federal custody in Nashville, Tennessee, facing charges of participating in a conspiracy to smuggle undocumented immigrants, allegedly as a member of MS-13. His lawyers argue the evidence is flimsy and that the government is backpedalling on its previous mistake by doubling down on criminal accusations. Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told a Maryland judge that the US intends to deport Abrego Garcia again, this time to an unnamed third country. There is no set timeline, but his attorneys say the threat is immediate and illegal. 'This was not a mistake,' one of his lawyers told reporters. 'It was a deliberate defiance of a court order.' The Justice Department has not commented publicly on whether it will comply with the Supreme Court's latest ruling or where it intends to send Abrego Garcia next.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Arunthathiyar candidates can compete in SC general quota too: HC
An Arunthathiyar candidate can compete in the Scheduled Caste general category quota on merit basis and if he or she is selected, the sub-quota earmarked for Arunthathiyars will not be affected, said the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The most meritorious Arunthathiyar candidate shall not be adjusted against the SC (Arunthathiyar) vacancy in the first instance, observed a Division Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by E. Surya, belonging to the Hindu Pallan community. The Teachers Recruitment Board issued a notification in 2019 for the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges and Special Institutions (Engineering/Non-Engineering). She had applied for the post of Lecturer (Information Technology) under the Scheduled Caste category. However, the two vacancies for the post were filled up by candidates belonging to SC (Arunthathiyar) community. The case of the appellant is that one Ms R, Jeyasudha, who scored more marks than her, ought to have been selected against the SC(A) category in the first instance. In that event, in the SC (General) vacancy, the appellant would have competed with others, all of whom had scored lower marks compared to her. Since Ms Jeyasudha was selected against SC (General) vacancy in the first instance itself, the appellant who is not an Arunthathiyar could not be considered for the remaining vacancy which had been reserved for a person belonging to the SC(A) category. She contended the procedure adopted by the recruiting agency was not in conformity with the statutory provisions. A Single Bench dismissed her petition. She preferred an appeal against the order. The Division Bench observed that reservation was introduced with the aim of advancing and giving adequate representation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. It is well settled that candidates who make it on their own merit have to be adjusted against the General Category candidates. In other words, when vacancies are filled up, the open quota opens first and candidates irrespective of caste, sex etc., are allowed to compete based on merit. The meritorious candidates should be first selected as against the open quota vacancies. Only thereafter, selection has to be made for the vertical reservation category from among the remaining candidates belonging to that particular reserved category (vertical) based on merits, the court observed. It must then be seen if sufficient numbers of candidates to satisfy special reservation (horizontal reservation) have been selected. If not, the required number of special reservation candidates shall have to be accommodated as against social reservation categories by deleting the number of candidates therefrom. At any rate candidates who were selected against a post under the open quota shall not be adjusted against the reserved quota under vertical reservations, the court observed. When a reserved candidate can compete in the open quota on merit and his/her selection would not affect the number of vacancies earmarked for his/her group the same approach should be adopted in the case of sub-reservation also. The court consequently upheld the manner of selection made by the Teachers Recruitment Board.
