The Supreme Court has directed a revision of the CLAT-UG 2025 merit list after identifying critical errors in several exam questions. Learn how this impacts students and what changes have been ordered.

Supreme Court Flags CLAT-UG 2025 Errors, Directs Merit List Correction

The Supreme Court of India has intervened in the CLAT-UG 2025 controversy, identifying serious issues in several exam questions. A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih ruled that the Consortium of National Law Universities must revise the merit list after evaluating and removing specific questions.

Court Criticizes Consortium for Careless Paper Setting

The Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Consortium crafted the CLAT-UG paper. Referencing its 2018 verdict in WP(C) 551/2018, the Court reminded the Union Government of India and the Bar Council of India of their failure to establish a permanent CLAT-conducting authority. A response is expected by next Friday.

Questions Re-Evaluated or Removed by Supreme Court

Question 56: Environmental Responsibility
The answer key incorrectly stated that only the state is responsible for environmental protection. The Court ruled that option (c), which includes citizen responsibility, should be the correct answer. Positive marks were to be awarded for (c) and (d), and negative for (a) and (b).

Question 77: Legal Reasoning and Contract Law
Although the Delhi High Court had ordered the removal of this question, the Supreme Court reinstated it. The bench ruled that a student using basic logic could answer it without legal knowledge. Only option (b) was deemed reasonable.

Question 78: Bribery and Government Employment
The Court agreed with the High Court’s judgment affirming option (c) as correct. This question remains valid.

Questions 85 and 88: Similar and Removed
After acknowledging flaws in question 85, the Consortium had already removed it. The Court also ordered the removal of question 88 due to similar reasoning.

Questions 115 and 116: Unreasonable Mathematical Complexity
These questions required complex calculations inappropriate for an objective law entrance test. Both were ordered removed to maintain fairness.

Petitions by Siddhi Sandeep Ladda and Aditya Singh

Both Siddhi Sandeep Ladda and Aditya Singh challenged the validity of the merit list. Ladda, who achieved an All India Rank 22, argued she was denied admission to NLSIU due to the High Court’s unfair decision affecting only certain paper sets.

Supreme Court Questions Consortium’s Accountability

Justice Gavai raised serious concerns over the competence of question paper setters, citing inconsistent and confusing questions. The Court criticized the complexity faced by 16–17-year-old students, questioning the expectation that they solve problems needing a calculator.

Background of the Case

The issue began on December 1, 2024, when questionable answers were challenged before the Delhi High Court. The High Court had initially directed the Consortium to revise scores for candidates from sets B, C, and D, but excluded set A candidates.

A Special Leave Petition was filed by Ladda, arguing discrimination against A-set candidates. The Supreme Court consolidated similar cases and ordered a review.

Conclusion: What This Means for CLAT Aspirants

This Supreme Court verdict reaffirms the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness in competitive exams like CLAT. By mandating the revision of the merit list and questioning the efficacy of the Consortium, the Court has opened the door for more transparent and accountable examination processes. Aspirants and stakeholders must now push for structural reforms, including the establishment of a permanent CLAT-conducting body. As the case continues to unfold, the verdict stands as a crucial reminder of the importance of accuracy and integrity in academic assessments.