On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court declined to stay a single-judge ruling instructing the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU Consortium) to amend the results of the Common Law Admission Test 2025 (CLAT-UG) due to errors identified in two questions.

A bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that, at first glance, they found no fault with the single-judge's decision.

"Prima facie, we find no error in the single-judge decision on the two questions being demonstrably wrong. The single-judge considered the questions carefully, a different view would not be plausible. Prima facie, we concur...We are unable to accept any ad interim order needs to be passed at this stage," the Division Bench said today.

Acting Chief Justice Bakhru also raised concerns about why the two apparent errors had not been addressed by the CLAT's expert committees.

"The single judge was charitable in saying that the questions were demonstrably wrong. Perhaps it warrants something more to be said...It shocks our conscience that you have two committees...Questionable if there is any application of mind...If you have four wrong answers, which wrong answer will you eliminate? Tell us why - apart from saying that your committees said so," he said.

The Bench clarified that the NLU Consortium could proceed with declaring the results in accordance with the single-judge order and scheduled the case for further hearing on January 7, 2025.

On December 20, Justice Jyoti Singh, in a single-judge ruling, partially allowed a plea filed by a 17-year-old CLAT candidate regarding alleged errors in the paper for undergraduate admissions to National Law Universities (NLUs). The judge found clear errors in two out of five questions flagged by the candidate and opined that the Court could not adopt a hands-off approach in the face of such obvious mistakes.

Justice Singh directed the Consortium of NLUs to announce revised results, adjusting the marks for the two erroneous questions, and specified that the revised results would apply to all CLAT candidates.

This decision has been challenged by both the NLU Consortium and the CLAT candidate. The Consortium contends that the single-judge wrongly assumed the role of an expert and should not have interfered with the finalization of exam answers by experts. The NLU Consortium has requested the High Court's Division Bench to set aside the single-judge order.

On the other hand, the CLAT aspirant has appealed to modify the single-judge ruling, claiming that the judge only addressed two of the five errors flagged by him. The candidate argues that there are glaring mistakes in three additional questions and seeks the Division Bench's intervention to ensure corrections are made for these as well.