Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment on CLAT UG 2025 Pleas; Hearing on CLAT PG Results Set for April 21

The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in a series of petitions challenging the results of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) UG 2025. During a hearing held on April 9, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela addressed concerns regarding alleged errors in CLAT questions and answer keys.

The court emphasized the need to expedite the decision-making process concerning the undergraduate CLAT examination, citing the urgency in finalizing results. On the other hand, the court stated that matters concerning CLAT PG 2025 will be taken up separately on April 21.

During previous proceedings, the High Court had advised the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to appoint more competent paper setters to avoid future discrepancies. The CLAT 2025 examination was conducted on December 1, with results released on December 7.

Significantly, the bench suggested that at least one question from the CLAT UG exam be scrapped due to its flawed formulation. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing the Consortium, agreed to withdraw the problematic question. Among the reviewed questions was a controversial logical reasoning item involving a scenario about homeless individuals, which received mixed evaluations from subject experts.

Earlier, the Supreme Court transferred all CLAT 2025-related petitions to the Delhi High Court to ensure consistent rulings and avoid jurisdictional conflicts. Although it initially considered moving the case to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Consortium requested that all related matters be either consolidated before the Supreme Court or assigned to a single High Court for efficiency.

An aspirant had previously informed the Delhi High Court about the existence of multiple petitions in different courts and the intent to file a transfer plea before the apex court.

Both the Consortium and CLAT aspirants opposed a previous order from the Delhi HC. The Consortium argued that the single-judge bench had overstepped by interfering with the expert-reviewed CLAT UG answer key. However, a two-judge bench refused to reverse that decision or provide interim relief. The court found no prima facie error in the single judge’s assessment of the two disputed questions and instructed the Consortium to proceed with declaring results in line with the ruling.

About Post Author

Hemesh Choudhary

See author's posts

Spread the love