Delhi HC Finds CLAT PG Answer Key Flawed, Orders Re-evaluation and Review of 'Excessive' Objection Fee

New Delhi: In a significant ruling for law aspirants, the Delhi High Court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to rectify errors in the final answer key for the CLAT PG 2024-25 examination and re-issue the results. A Division Bench, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela , also strongly advised the Consortium to reconsider its "excessive and disproportionate" fee of Rs. 1,000 per question for raising objections.

---

Background of the Dispute

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by CLAT PG candidates, including Anam Khan, Nitika, and Ayush Agrawal. The petitioners challenged the correctness of the final answer key for several questions and argued that the hefty objection fee was prohibitive, preventing them from challenging the erroneous answers within the designated window. They contended that since the fee itself was under challenge before the Supreme Court, their inability to object should not bar their writ petitions.

The High Court decided to examine two primary issues: the correctness of the disputed questions and the reasonableness of the objection fee.

Court's Analysis of Disputed Questions

The petitioners focused their arguments on four questions: Nos. 21, 56, 57, and 98 of the Master Booklet.

• Question 56 Withdrawn: The Consortium conceded that due to a discrepancy in the options provided in the Master Booklet versus the printed question papers, Question No. 56 was being withdrawn entirely. It will not be considered for evaluation for any candidate.

• Question 21 (Based on Bangalore Water Supply case): The Court found a significant flaw in the Consortium's approach. The question was based on a passage purported to be from the Bangalore Water Supply judgment, but was admittedly a commentary. The passage itself stated, "what mattered was the nature of the activity and the relationship between the employer and the employees." However, the Consortium's correct answer (Option B) referred to the "Dominant Function Test," a concept not mentioned in the provided passage.

  The Court held:

  "It would be unreasonable to expect the candidates to look for any answer beyond what is provided in the passage itself. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the answer in option ‘B’ is incorrect and option ‘C’ is the correct answer."

• Question 57 (Based on Mohit Minerals case): The Court noted another error where the provided passage was from a commentary, not the judgment itself. After analysing the Assertion (A) and Reason (R) within the context of the passage, the Court upheld the Consortium's designated correct answer (Option 'a'), finding that the reasoning provided was a correct explanation of the assertion based on a literal reading of the text supplied to the candidates.

• Question 98 (On Jurisprudence): This question asked to identify the jurist who defined a right as "an interest which is to be recognised, protected and enforced by law." The Consortium marked "Roscoe Pound" (Option 'a') as correct. The petitioners, citing judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, argued that the correct answer was "Salmond" (Option 'b').

  The Court unequivocally agreed with the petitioners, citing judicial precedents that explicitly attribute the statement to Salmond.

  "Plainly, we do not see how the Consortium can take a stand that it is Roscoe Pound and not Salmond who has given the statement... Clearly, it is option (b) i.e. Salmond and not option (a) i.e. Pound, which is the correct answer."

On the 'Excessive' Objection Fee

The petitioners vehemently argued that the Rs. 1,000 fee per objection was "excessive, exorbitant, disproportionate and prohibitive," especially when compared to the nominal fees (Rs. 100-200) charged by other national testing bodies like UGC NET and NEET. They also contended the Consortium lacked the statutory power to levy such a hefty fee.

The Consortium defended the fee as a necessary measure to "keep frivolous objections at bay," arguing that it prevents coaching institutes and non-serious candidates from overwhelming the system and delaying the admission process.

While the Court acknowledged the Consortium's concern about frivolous challenges, it found the fee to be prima facie excessive. However, to avoid further litigation and complications, it refrained from quashing the levy for the current year. Instead, the Court issued a strong advisory for the future.

"We expect that the aforesaid observations would be sufficient for the Consortium to take heed of and take appropriate steps to avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations... In our considered opinion, it may be advisable for the Consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram (Retd.) for his valuable opinion."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with a clear directive to the Consortium of National Law Universities to:

1. Withdraw Question No. 56 from evaluation for all candidates.

2. Correct the answer for Question No. 21 to Option 'C'.

3. Correct the answer for Question No. 98 to Option 'b' (Salmond).

4. Re-calculate the scores and re-issue the results with expedition based on these corrections.

5. Reconsider the objection fee structure for future examinations, potentially based on the recommendations of the Justice G. Raghuram (Retd.) committee.

This judgment provides significant relief to the petitioners and other CLAT PG 2024-25 candidates, ensuring a fairer evaluation. It also sets a crucial precedent, putting testing bodies on notice regarding the fairness of their question-setting process and the reasonableness of associated fees.