1. Mismanagement of a national law entrance examination involving technical glitches and infrastructural failures resulting in loss of effective time for candidates. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 674
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Disha Panchal and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India the Secretary and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.551 of 2018
With
Rishi Dutt – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.554 of 2018
With
Yash Singhania – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.621 of 2018
With
Akshat Aggarwal & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.600 of 2018
Decided On : 13-06-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Examination need not be canceled as a whole.
Merit list to be revised based on revision of marks obtained determined in accordance with normalisation formula.
First round of conselling would continue and be completed unaffected by revision of result by compensating for lost time.
Merit list prepared after compensating the candidates will be the governing list for second and subsequent counseling.
After second and subsequent counseling a candidate can change college and the fee paid to earlier college shall be given due credit.
Examination need not be canceled as a whole.
Merit list to be revised based on revision of marks obtained determined in accordance with normalisation formula.
First round of conselling would continue and be completed unaffected by revision of result by compensating for lost time.
Merit list prepared after compensating the candidates will be the governing list for second and subsequent counseling.
After second and subsequent counseling a candidate can change college and the fee paid to earlier college shall be given due credit.
Subject
Education Law - Entrance Examination
Headnote
(a) CLAT Examinations – Purity of examination not in dispute – Grievance regarding non-availability of adequate online time, and interruptions – Examination need not be canceled as a whole. (Para 8, 10)
(b) CLAT Examinations – Compensation for lost time – Normalisation formula for compensating a candidate for lost time based on answering efficiency of candidate – Accepted – Directions given. (Para 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
These petitions highlight improper conduct of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is a single window online entrance test for admission to 19 prestigious National Law Universities in the country. The petitioners had appeared for said CLAT and had faced various difficulties, which according to them, were occasioned as a result of mismanagement by respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Finding of the Court:
Examination need not be canceled as a whole. The aggrieved candidates should be compensated for their lost time.
Result: Petitions disposed of.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Examination need not be canceled as a whole; compensation for lost time is accepted (!) (!) . - Normalization formula based on answering efficiency is approved for compensating 4690 candidates (!) (!) . - Revised scores to be completed by 15.06.2018 and published on 16.06.2018 (!) (!) . - First round of counseling continues unaffected; revised rank list governs second and subsequent rounds (!) (!) . - Union of India directed to appoint a Committee to review examination conduct and suggest remedial measures (!) .
What is the methodology for compensating candidates who lost time during the CLAT 2018 examination?
How should the examination be conducted to ensure uninterrupted access for candidates?
What are the directions for revising the merit list and counseling process based on the compensation applied?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:- Harvinder Chowdhury, Ramesh Chand, Dr. Nishesh Sharma, Ms. Meera Patel, Anil Kumar Singh, Ketan Nehra, Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Siddharth Tiwari, Zoheb Hossain, Rajendra Dangwal, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Maninder Singh, Shalinder Saini, Sanjay K. Pathak, Amarjeet Singh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, A. Karthik, Gaurav Bahl, Sudhanshu Palo, Advs.
For the Petitioners:- Harvinder Chowdhury, Ramesh Chand, Dr. Nishesh Sharma, Ms. Meera Patel, Anil Kumar Singh, Ketan Nehra, Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Siddharth Tiwari, Zoheb Hossain, Rajendra Dangwal, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Maninder Singh, Shalinder Saini, Sanjay K. Pathak, Amarjeet Singh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, A. Karthik, Gaurav Bahl, Sudhanshu Palo, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the entire entrance examination should be cancelled due to mismanagement or if affected candidates should be compensated through a specific methodology. (Para 7 )
3. Cancellation would cause undue hardship; a normalization formula based on answering efficiency and success rate effectively compensates for lost time without compromising purity. (Para 8 , 10 )
4. Where examination purity is not compromised but technical failures cause loss of time, compensation via statistical normalization is preferable to total cancellation. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Rejected cancellation; directed application of a normalization formula to revise scores and ordered a government inquiry into the examination's conduct. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 )
6. When is the total cancellation of a competitive examination warranted versus compensatory measures?
Cancellation is avoided if the purity of the examination process is not compromised and the grievances, such as loss of time due to technical glitches, can be compensated without causing undue hardship to the majority of candidates. (Para 8 )
7. How can candidates be compensated for loss of time in a computer-based test without prejudicing other candidates?
By applying a normalization formula based on the candidate's answering efficiency (time taken per question) and their success rate to calculate a revised score for the notional time lost. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. What is the legal remedy for systemic failure in the conduct of a public entrance examination?
The court may order the revision of scores for affected candidates and direct the relevant government ministry to appoint a committee for remedial measures and penal action against the conducting body. (Para 12 , 13 )
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
These petitions highlight improper conduct of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is a single window online entrance test for admission to 19 prestigious National Law Universities in the country. The petitioners had appeared for said CLAT and had faced various difficulties, which according to them, were occasioned as a result of mismanagement by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Some of the difficulties that were experienced by the petitioners and other candidates were:
A. Questions of the examination did not appear on the screen at the start, and were intermittently disappearing and re-appearing.
B. The options to move to the next question, etc. stopped working intermittently.
C. Blank screens or frozen screens and software crashes.
D. Invigilators were incompetent and unhelpful - in being unable to help resolve glitches and in terms of their rudeness, when apprised of the existence of glitches.
E. Computers were dysfunctional and rebooting them did not help.
Resultantly, the effective time available to the candidates was far lesser than the allotted time, which in turn caused great prejudice to the candidates.
2. In addition to the petitions filed in this Court, some candidates also approached various High Courts, where the petitions are still pending. By order dated 24.05.2018 this Court had said, "as the entire issue in reference to CLAT Examination - 2018 is the subject matter in the present proceedings, it is appropriate that no High Court shall proceed with the hearing of pending proceedings on the subject matter till further orders."
3. On 25.05.2018 following order was passed by this Court:
"In deference to the observations made by the Court during the course of hearing yesterday, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have graciously agreed to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court, Mr. Justice M.R. Hariharan Nair, Dr. Santhosh Kumar G., Professor and Head, Department of Computer Science, Cochin University of Science and Technology. The Committee will be chaired by Mr. Justice M.R. Hariharan Nair who will examine every singular representation/complaint received online till now and any further representation/complaint received till 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27thMay, 2018 and after due analysis, appropriate decision on case to case basis will be taken by the Committee.
In the first phase, the representations/complaints already received and of all the writ petitioners before this Court as well as different High Courts may be scrutinized and appropriate report/ recommendation/ decision thereon be recorded by the appropriate authority before 29th May, 2018 to be produced before the Court on 30th May, 2018.
In the second phase, new/fresh representation/complaints received online upto 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27th May, 2018 be taken up for consideration and, if possible, the scrutiny thereof be completed on the same lines as indicated above up to 29th May, 2018 and status report in that behalf be filed before the Court on 30th May, 2018.
Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that as soon as fresh/new representations/complaints are received online, attempt will be made to acknowledge the same contemporaneously as far as possible.
We appreciate the fair stand taken by learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to offer dispensation of this nature within such a short time.
Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that a dedicated email account will be created for this purpose of which publicity will be given on the official website of CLAT and will be notified on the official website very shortly within two hours from now.
We make it clear that this order will also enure to the benefit of the writ petitioners who have filed writ petition in different High Courts.
Interim stay regarding proceedings pending before different High Courts will continue to operate till the next date of hearing.
List the matters on 30th May, 2018."
4. The Griev
