Introduction:
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) in response to a petition challenging the answer key for CLAT PG 2025. The vacation bench of Justice SG Dige and Justice Advait M Sethna clarified that any selection based on the final answer key would remain subject to the outcome of this petition. Filed by Anam Khan, the petitioner raised concerns about errors in the answer key and the imposition of a steep Rs. 1000 fee per question for raising objections, which restricted her ability to voice grievances effectively. The matter is set for further hearing before a regular bench on January 14, 2025.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner, Anam Khan, argued that the Consortium’s final answer key for CLAT PG 2025 contained errors that could impact her results and future prospects. She emphasized that the grievance redressal mechanism, requiring a fee of Rs. 1000 per question to file objections, was both exorbitant and discriminatory, effectively barring students from economically weaker backgrounds from seeking justice. She further contended that the Consortium’s approach violated principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity, as it made the process inaccessible to many. Khan sought judicial intervention to rectify errors in the answer key and ensure fairness in the evaluation process.
On behalf of the respondent, the Consortium of NLUs, counsel defended the imposition of the objection fee, arguing that it was necessary to deter frivolous objections and ensure administrative efficiency. The Consortium maintained that the answer key was prepared with due diligence by a panel of experts and that adequate measures were in place to address genuine errors. Furthermore, the respondents argued that the petitioner had an opportunity to raise objections within the stipulated time frame and had chosen not to do so, making her claims procedurally invalid. The Consortium opposed judicial interference, asserting that the established processes were both lawful and necessary to maintain the integrity of the examination.
Court’s Judgement:
After examining the arguments, the vacation bench acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns regarding the excessive fee for objections. The court observed that the financial barrier created by the Rs. 1000-per-question fee raised questions about accessibility and fairness, particularly for candidates from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. It highlighted that the right to raise objections and seek correction of errors is fundamental to ensuring the credibility of any competitive examination.
The court also took note of the petitioner’s claim that the errors in the answer key could materially affect her scores and ranking, potentially impacting her career prospects. Acknowledging the gravity of these concerns, the court emphasized that a fair grievance redressal mechanism must balance efficiency with inclusivity, ensuring that all candidates have an equal opportunity to raise genuine objections.
Addressing the Consortium’s arguments, the court clarified that while deterring frivolous objections is a legitimate goal, imposing a prohibitively high fee was not the appropriate solution. It further observed that transparency in the examination process is critical to maintaining trust and confidence among candidates.
In its interim order, the court directed that any selection based on the final answer key would remain subject to the final outcome of the petition. It issued a notice to the Consortium of NLUs, requiring them to respond to the petitioner’s allegations. The matter was adjourned to January 14, 2025, for further hearing before a regular bench.
The judgment underscores the importance of balancing administrative efficiency with the need to uphold the rights of candidates, particularly in high-stakes examinations like CLAT PG. While the court refrained from making a final determination on the merits of the petitioner’s claims, its interim directions reflect a commitment to ensuring fairness and transparency in the evaluation process.