CLAT-UG 2025 : Supreme Court Flags Mistakes; Directs To Give Marks For Certain Answers, Deletes Some Questions

The Supreme Court today flagged several mistakes in the CLAT-UG 2025 questions and directed the revision of the merit list, after setting aside some of the directions issued by the Delhi High Court.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to award marks for certain questions and to delete certain other questions (details given below). 

The bench, hearing petitions challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment, expressed its disappointment with the Consortium for its shoddy conduct of the exam.

"At the outset, we must express our anguish at the causal manner in which the Consortium has been framing the questions for the CLAT examination which involves the career aspirations of lakhs of students in the country," the Court observed.

The Court noted with disappointment that, though in 2018, the Supreme Court had passed a judgment in WP(C) 551/2018 recommended the constitution of a permanent body for CLAT examinations, no steps have been taken by the Union Government and the Bar Council of India. Therefore, notice was issued to the Union Government returnable next Friday. The bench also decided to suo motu take up a writ petition filed in 2015 by late Professor Shamnad Basheer seeking a permanent body for CLAT.

"We may state that in academic matters, the Court is always restrained in interference inasmuch as it does not possess expertise in academic matters. However, when the academicians themselves err in such a manner which affects the careers of lakhs of students, the Court is left with no opportunity..," the Court observed.

Details of questions interfered with

The Court dealt with six questions ( 56, 77, 78, 85, 88, 115, 116).

Question 56 :  The Court noted that, as per the answer key, the fundamental duty to protect the environment is only on the State. This is wrong as the citizens also have the duty. The Court expressed surprise at the stand taken by the Consortium. Hence, the Court said that option (c) should also be considered a correct answer to this question. Hence, the consortium was directed to give positive marks for those who have given (c) and (d) answers and give negative marks for (a) and (b).

Question 77 : According to the Consortium, by reading the passage, even a student without legal knowledge would have given the answer (b). The High Court directed to delete this question while giving markings to the students. Some candidates submitted that without prior knowledge of the Contract Act, it was impossible to answer the question. The Court observed, "The modality that is operated is providing a basic information in the material preceding the question. The perusal of the said material would clearly reveal that if a student applies reason and logic, he would make a distinction between void, voidable and valid contracts...An agreement made by an adult with a minor child with the minor as a signatory will not be void. It will be voidable when the minor rejects the same. As such, we find that without prior knowledge of law, upon the perusal of the material provided, the only logical answer is (b). We therefore set aside the direction of the High Court deleting question 77. We direct the Consortium to give marks to those students who have given answer (b)."

Question 78 :  The question is regarding scenarios resulting in void agreements. According to the Consortium, the answer is the agreement to secure a government job by taking bribe. The High Court rejected the contention regarding the deletion of the said question. "We are in agreement with the High Court that answer (c) is correct and do not interfere with the findings to that effect."

Question 85, 88 :  The Consortium deleted question no.85. The Court found not much difference between questions 85 and 88. The Court therefore directed the deletion of question no.88 as well.

Question 115, 116 : The Court said, "We find that for answering the question, the candidate will have to undergo a detailed mathematical analysis which is not expected in an objective test. We therefore direct the deletion of Question 115." The Court noted that question number 116 is also dependent on 115. Hence, 116 was also directed to be deleted. The High Court's direction to award marks for question 115 was set aside.

"We set aside the direction of the High Court for giving marks to all students who have attempted 115. We find that on account of confusing results, many students might not have attempted to answer. In order to put all candidates on a level playing field, we direct the deletion of 115. Answer to 116 being dependent on the information in 115, 116 is also directed to be deleted."

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with pleas filed by two candidates viz. Siddhi Sandeep Ladda and Aditya Singh.

Last week, the Court had stayed the High Court's judgment while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by Siddhi Sandeep Ladda.

Arguments 

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for Ladda, said that she had secured All India Rank 22, which would have enabled her to get into the NLSIU; but now, with the revision of the merit list, she will lose that opportunity. 

During the hearing, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with some of the questions, since erroneous options were given. Justice Gavai also asked why a permanent body can't conduct the CLAT examinations as done for the NEET and JEE.

"For Question 77, answer (voidable) is correct prima facie. From paragraph it is clear...someone applying common sense would say...in question 115, even (d) option is not correct...the question itself is incorrect. If options are not at all related to question...,What kind of Vice Chancellors are setting question papers?" Justice Gavai said.

Observing that many questions were very complicated, Justice Gavai asked if the Consortium was expecting 16-17 years to know the answers.

Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, for the NLU Consortium, admitted that there were errors in question 85 and it was deleted. Justice Gavai said questions 88 and 115 should also be omitted.

"Question 85 has been held to be gone...88 should also go...115 should go for everyone...are you expecting children to come with calculator? 16-17 yrs old girls and boys...," Justice Gavai observed.

Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan & Balbir Singh, and Advocate Sameer Rohatgi (who specifically argued in relation to Question 56), also appeared for candidates.

Background

The High Court had found errors in four questions in sets B, C and D question papers and directed that marks be given for these questions to the candidates who attempted the said sets. The CLAT consortium was directed to revise the merit list within a period of four weeks. The High Court however did not grant this benefit to the candidates who attempted the A set, saying that this set did not have errors.

The SLP before the Supreme Court was filed by a candidate, who attempted the A set and secured the All India Rank 22. She contended that the High Court's direction put the candidates who received the A Set Question Paper at a disadvantage when compared to the students who received the B, C and D sets. The High Court's direction therefore, robbed the petitioner of a level playing field, it was contended.

The exam held on December 1, 2024, ran into controversies due to complaints regarding questions. In December 2024, a single judge of the Delhi High Court found that two answers of the CLAT-UG 2025 exam were wrong and asked the Consortium to revise the results of the petitioners. The Consortium appealed to the division bench against the Judgment. On April 23, 2025, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela decided the Consortium's appeal.

In February, the Supreme Court had transferred to the Delhi High Court petitions filed in other High Courts challenging the CLAT 2025 results.

Appearance: Senior Advocates KK Venugopal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Deepak Nargolkar and Soumik Ghoshal AOR (for the petitioner)

Case Title :

(1) SIDDHI SANDEEP LADDA v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ANR | Diary No. 22324-2025

(2) ADITYA SINGH Versus CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES | Diary No. 24223-2025 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Click here to read the judgment