Aditya Singh, the candidate, who has challenged the results of the Common Law Admission Test 2025 (CLAT-UG), informed the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that he intends to approach the Supreme Court to seek a transfer of the case from the High Court.

During proceedings, Singh told a bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that, due to similar matters pending in other High Courts, he would request the Supreme Court to consolidate these cases and transfer them to the apex court.

As a result, Singh requested an adjournment of the matter, which the Bench granted. On December 20, Justice Jyoti Singh, in a single-judge ruling, partially upheld Singh’s plea regarding certain errors in the CLAT paper for undergraduate admissions to National Law Universities (NLUs). Justice Singh had found clear errors in two of the five questions raised by Singh. The judge concluded that the Court could not ignore such obvious errors and ordered the Consortium of NLUs to announce revised results, adjusting marks for the two affected questions.

Both the NLU Consortium and Singh have challenged the December 20 ruling before the Division Bench. The petitioner contends that the single judge wrongly took on the role of an expert and interfered with exam results that had been finalized by qualified experts. Meanwhile, Singh seeks to extend the corrections, arguing that three additional questions contained “blatant mistakes” and should also be amended.

The Division Bench, during the hearing on December 24, had declined to stay the single-judge order, finding no prima facie error in the findings. It also clarified that the NLU Consortium could proceed with declaring results based on the single-judge's decision.

At today’s hearing, Singh informed the Court of his plan to file a petition with the Supreme Court for the case's transfer. The High Court subsequently adjourned the case to January 30.

Additionally, the controversy surrounding CLAT has extended to the Postgraduate (PG) exam, with incorrect answer keys prompting challenges in the Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts.