Supreme Court Takes Up Plea for Permanent CLAT Conducting Authority

-

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

The Supreme Court of India has revived a significant discussion on the administration of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), following its decision to suo motu proceed with a writ petition originally filed in 2015 by the late Prof. Shamnad Basheer. This move comes amid considerable criticism regarding the conduct of CLAT-UG 2025, with the highest court in the country expressing serious concerns about the quality and reliability of the examination process.

Case Details and Bench

The matter, registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 600 of 2015, is being heard by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih. The bench is also considering related petitions challenging the results and administration of the CLAT-UG 2025 exam, which was conducted in December 2024.

Supreme Court’s Observations

During the recent hearings, the Supreme Court voiced its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the CLAT examination has been managed by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs). The Court observed that the current system, where different NLUs conduct the exam each year on a rotational basis, has led to inconsistencies and errors in the question papers-issues that directly affect the future of thousands of law aspirants.

The bench questioned the credibility of the examination-setting process, asking, “Which Vice-Chancellors are framing these questions?” and further inquired why a permanent mechanism, similar to those used for other national-level entrance exams like NEET and JEE, could not be established for CLAT.

Reference to Previous Judgments

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, highlighted a 2018 Supreme Court judgment that had already directed the Union Government to consider the establishment of a permanent body for conducting CLAT. Despite this judicial directive, no significant action has been taken by the authorities, prompting the current bench to issue fresh notices to the Union Government, the Bar Council of India, and the NLUs.

Concerns Raised by Petitioners

The original petition by Prof. Shamnad Basheer pointed out several systemic flaws in the administration of CLAT, including arbitrary and sub-standard question papers, incorrect answers, lack of transparency, and administrative inefficiencies. The petition called for the creation of a robust and institutionalized mechanism to conduct the exam, ensuring fairness and reducing the scope for errors.

Current Dispute and Directions

In the ongoing litigation, the Supreme Court has identified mistakes in the recent CLAT-UG 2025 exam and has issued directions regarding the award of marks for certain answers and the deletion of problematic questions. The Court has also stayed a previous High Court order that had directed the revision and republication of the merit list, pending further review.

Legal Terminology and Glossary

  • Suo motu: Action taken by a court on its own initiative.
  • Writ petition: A formal request to a court seeking legal remedy.
  • Consortium: An association of institutions collaborating for a common purpose.
  • Article 14: Constitutional provision guaranteeing equality before the law.
  • Artificial classification: An arbitrary grouping that violates the principle of equality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s proactive approach in revisiting the administration of CLAT marks a critical juncture for legal education in India. The proceedings underscore the urgent need for a permanent, transparent, and accountable body to oversee the conduct of the nation’s premier law entrance examination. The legal community and aspiring students now await further developments and potential reforms that could reshape the future of legal admissions in the country.

Disclaimer:

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an official legal opinion. The views expressed are those of the author based on publicly available information and court proceedings as of the date of writing. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals for advice on specific legal issues or developments.

Location: Tilak Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110001, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Clarifies Recovery of Maintenance Arrears Under CrPC: A Landmark Judgment

-
Image
  Supreme Court Clarifies Recovery of Maintenance Arrears Under CrPC: A Landmark Judgment By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the enforcement mechanisms for the recovery of unpaid maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court clarified that arrears of maintenance can be recovered by treating them as a levy of fine under Section 421 of the CrPC, ensuring that defaulters cannot evade their financial obligations. This ruling is a significant step toward strengthening the legal framework for the protection of dependents, particularly spouses and children, who rely on maintenance for their livelihood. Background of the Case The case involved an appellant wife, Poongodi, and her minor son, who filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC against the respondent husband, Thangavel, for maintenance. The trial court awarded maintenance of ₹300 per month, effective from February 4, 1993. ...
Read more

Supreme Court Clarifies "Readiness and Willingness" Requirement in Specific Performance Cases

-
Image
 Supreme Court Clarifies "Readiness and Willingness" Requirement in Specific Performance Cases Recent Judgment Sets Precedent on Acceptance of Earnest Money Refund By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant ruling that reshapes the landscape of real estate contract enforcement, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a noteworthy judgment in Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4972 of 2025). The Court has clarified crucial aspects regarding the "readiness and willingness" requirement for specific performance of contracts and established that acceptance of refunded earnest money may render a specific performance claim untenable. Case Background The dispute originated from an unregistered Agreement to Sell executed on January 25, 2008, for a property in Patna valued at ₹25 lakhs. The buyer (respondent) had paid ₹2.51 lakhs in cash and issued three post-dated cheques of ₹2.5 lakhs each. Shortly thereafter, the seller alleged that her si...
Read more

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

-
Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate     Introduction The Chhattisgarh High Court recently delivered a crucial judgment in Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 891 of 2019), reaffirming the judicial interpretation of marital rape and unnatural offenses under Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 376 (rape) or Section 377 (unnatural offenses) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for engaging in sexual intercourse, including unnatural sex, with his major wife, even in the absence of her consent. The ruling underscores the long-standing exception in Indian criminal law regarding marital rape and highlights judicial scrutiny over charges framed under Section 304 IPC. Background of the Case The appellant, Gorakhnath Sharma, was convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 376, 377,...
Read more