The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition challenging the conduct of the Common Law Admission Test Postgraduate (CLAT PG) 2025, which alleged procedural lapses and arbitrary treatment of candidates.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed the petitioners to approach the relevant High Court rather than seeking relief directly from the Supreme Court.
"There are precedents saying we cannot be court of first instance. We are not inclined to entertain the Article 32 petition. Petitioners may approach jurisdictional High Court," the Court ordered.
The Court also declined the petitioners' request to halt the admission process until the High Court hears the matter. It emphasized that granting such interim relief would not be appropriate after deciding not to entertain the plea.
"The balance of convenience is not in favour of stay," the Bench added.
The petitioners' counsel raised concerns about the difficulty in deciding which High Court to approach, given that candidates who appeared for the exam hail from various States. In response, the Court suggested that this issue could be addressed by approaching the Delhi High Court.
"They (candidates from different States) can then go to Delhi High Court, you can file it with permission. Please, you can take permission from High Court and file," the Court said.
The petitioners, Anam Khan and Ayush Agrawal, who appeared for the CLAT PG 2025 exam conducted on December 1, raised concerns about procedural inconsistencies, errors in the provisional answer key, and the excessive fees for filing objections.
In their plea against the Consortium of National Law Universities, they alleged procedural lapses and arbitrary treatment of candidates during the examination process.
According to the petitioners, procedural irregularities at examination centers led to unequal treatment, undermining the fairness and integrity of the test. Anam Khan, who took the exam at Government Law College in Mumbai, received her question booklet at 1:50 PM, in accordance with the Consortium’s Test Day Instructions.
In contrast, Ayush Agrawal, who appeared at Acropolis Institute of Law in Indore, received his question booklet after 2:00 PM, effectively reducing his examination time. This, they argued, violated their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petition also contested the accuracy of several answers in the provisional answer key, alleging errors in at least 12 questions. The petitioners claimed that such errors reflected negligence on the part of the Consortium, which adversely affected candidates' merit rankings.
Further, the petitioners criticized the ₹1,000 fee per objection as unreasonable, especially since the errors stemmed from the Consortium’s oversight. Despite charging ₹4,000 as an application fee, the Consortium failed to ensure accuracy in the answer key, they argued.
Additionally, they expressed concerns about the timeline for the release of the answer key and subsequent counseling process. The final answer key was released on December 9, results on December 10, and counseling registration began on December 11. The petitioners contended that this timeline did not provide sufficient time for candidates to seek legal remedies or challenge the answer key errors.
Consequently, they sought a stay on the publication of CLAT PG 2025 results and the counseling process until the final answer key was corrected and released without errors.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy