O R D E R

% 24.12.2024 CM APPL. 76413/2024

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CAV 639/2024

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator appears. Accordingly, the caveat stands discharged.

CM APPL. 76412/2024

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

LPA 1251/2024 & CM APPL. 76410/2024, CM APPL. 76411/2024, 5. The appellant (a Consortium of National Law Universities) has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 20.12.2024 (hereafter the impugned judgment) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Aditya Singh (Minor) v. Consortium of National Law Universities: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:9846. The respondent had filed the said writ petition [being W.P.(C) No.17138/2024], inter alia, praying as under:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other similar writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned final answer key (Annexure P-8) dated 07.12.2024 declared by the respondent for Common Law Admission Test-2025 (CLAT-2025) for admission to 5 year LL.B. courses conducted by National Law Universities in the 2025-26 session; and (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondent to constitute an expert committee for consideration and evaluation of the objections filed by the petitioner on 03.12.2024 vide Annexure P-7 and 09.12.2024 vide Annexure P-9 and direct to the respondent to declare the correct answers w.r.t. question nos. 14, 37, 67,68 and 100 of Question paper Set-A out of four sets of question papers of Common Law Admission Test-2025(CLAT-2025);

and (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondent to upload and publish the revised %& corrected answer key qua question no. 14, 37, 67, 68 and 100 in respect of Common Law Admission Test-2025 (CLAT-2025) held on 01-12-2024 and thereafter issue further process of Admission Counseling for CLA T UG examination; and (iv) consequently issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondent to recalculate the marks of the Petitioner in accordance with the revised and corrected answer key so to be prepared; and place the petitioner at the appropriate rank in the merit list prepared after such review; and”

6. The respondent had challenged the answer key in respect of a number of questions as manifestly erroneous. Whilst, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the answer key in respect of several questions, the learned Single Judge found that the answers key in respect of two questions are demonstrably wrong and accordingly, directed that the result of the respondent as well as other candidates in respect of the said two questions be revised. The operative part of the impugned judgment is set out below:

“40. Therefore, in my view, this is not a case where the Court should adopt a complete hands-off approach. The errors in Question Nos.14 and 100 are demonstrably clear and shutting a blind eye to the same would be injustice to the Petitioner albeit this Court is conscious of the fact that it may impact the result of 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 Digitally Signed candidates who have opted for option ‘C’. Question No.100 will be excluded as correctly advised by the Expert Committee and the result will be accordingly revised.

7. Opening arguments of the appellant have been heard.

8. Prima facie, we find no error in the decision of the learned Single Judge in finding that the answers to the two questions are demonstrably wrong. The learned Single Judge has examined the two questions carefull