SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Siddhi Sandeep Ladda – Appellant
Versus
Consortium Of National Law Universities And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12786 of 2025), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025)(Diary No. 24223 of 2025)
Decided on : 07-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. emphasis on the importance of fair examination practices and accountability. (Para 1) |
| 2. overview of appeals (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. critique on clat question framing (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. committee formed for clat scrutiny (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's role in academic matters (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. questions and answers related to environmental protection (Para 10 , 12 , 20 , 22) |
| 7. consideration of void and voidable agreements (Para 23 , 25 , 30 , 32) |
| 8. wage disparities and omission of questions (Para 39 , 44 , 52 , 56) |
| 9. final directions and order (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and final order in LPA No.1250 of 2024 dated 23rd April 2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”). The Division Bench of the High Court was seized of the Letter Patents Appeals which were filed challenging the judgment and final order dated 20th December 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as a batch of Writ Petitions which were filed across various High Courts and which had been transferred to it by this Court.
3. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant; Shri Raj Shekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Consortium of National Law Universities (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.1”); Shri Dhanesh Relan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2; Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the intervenor(s).
4. At the outset, we must express our deep anguish regarding the callous and casual manner in which the Respondent No.1 has been framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred to as, “CLAT”), an examination on the basis of which meritorious candidates get entry into the prestigious National Law Universities across the country.
5. This Court has on a previous occasion by way of a judgment in the case of Disha Panchal and Others v. Union of India through the Secretary and Others , (2018) 17 SCC 278 : 2018 INSC 553, while dealing with a batch of petitions highlighting improper conduct of CLAT, observed thus:
“15. We have dealt with the matter only from the stand point of how best to compensate the candidates who lost valuable time while undergoing test. We must record that we are not at all satisfied with the way the examination was conducted. The body which was given the task of conducting the examination was duty bound to ensure facilities of uninterrupted UPS and generator facility. The record indicates complete inadequacy on that point. We therefore direct Union of India in the Ministry of Human Resources and Development to appoint a Committee to look into the matter and take appropriate remedial measures including penal action, if any, against the body which was entrusted with the task. The Committee so constituted shall also look into the aspect of having completely satisfactory arrangements in future so that no such instances are repeated or reoccur in coming years. We must also observe that the idea of entrusting the task of monitoring the conduct of entire examination to different Law Universities every year also needs to be re-visited. The agreement with the examination conducting body, which was placed on record indicates that as against the amount made over to such examination conducting body, the fees charged from the candidates are far in excess. The committee shall bestow consideration to all these aspects after having inputs from such sources as it may deem appropriate including Bar Council of India and make a detailed report to this Court within three months from today.” (emphasis added)
6. It can thus be seen that this Court has constituted a committee to inter-alia look into the shortcomings in the conduct of CLAT. It can further be seen that this Court has specifically observed that the idea of entrusting the
Disha Panchal and Others v. Union of India through the Secretary and Others
AI
In academic matters, courts may intervene to rectify improperly framed examination questions affecting candidate assessment and maintain fairness in evaluation processes.
The court emphasized the need for restraint in challenging key answers and the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in recruitment disputes.
Judicial review of examination answer keys is permitted only when keys are demonstrably unconstitutional, ensuring fair promotion processes for candidates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right conferred by Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the 1971 Rules, which guarantees parity in wages and benefits to contract labours engaged with....
The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine wage parity for contract workers performing similar work as regular employees under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules....
The High Court must not entertain recruitment disputes when a Tribunal has jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle of alternative remedy in administrative matters per the Administrative Tribunals Act....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.