Abstract
The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), which is the gateway to India’s premier National Law Universities (NLUs), has long been considered a benchmark for meritocratic access to legal education.
However, the CLAT 2025 exam went beyond controversy—marked by errors in the question paper, inconsistencies in the answer key, and subsequent litigation—making it call a scam exposing systemic flaws in the administration of high-stakes national entrance examinations.
This article analyses the facts of the controversy, identifies the core legal issues, examines the responses of relevant authorities, surveys judicial interventions, and evaluates the broader policy implications for the governance of competitive examinations to prevent scam.
Introduction
Entrance examinations such as the CLAT implicate not merely academic performance but the constitutional promise of equal opportunity in access to education.
When lapses occur, they undermine trust in institutions and open the door to legal challenges grounded in administrative law and fundamental rights. The CLAT 2025 exam demonstrates how even minor administrative errors can qualify the category of scam and trigger significant legal and policy consequences.
Prior to 2025, there were also reported scams in examinations of CLAT 2015, 2018, and 2020.
Factual Matrix
CLAT-UG 2025 was filled with widespread allegations of errors in the question paper, conduct, and discrepancies in the provisional answer key. Candidates lodged objections, and the issue soon reached the courts.
- On December 20, 2024, a single judge bench of Delhi High Court ruled that two of the five disputed questions challenged were erroneous, directing the Consortium of NLUs (the body responsible for administering CLAT) to revisit results and revise the merit list according to the order.
- Several other petitions challenging the exam and result-declaration process were subsequently filed in multiple high courts including both the UG and PG exams.
- There was also a petition filed citing incompetency of grievance committee and ban on underlining passages in exam hall, contrary to notification.
This further reached the Supreme Court, which entertained petitions, flagging mistakes in the question paper and expressing concerns about the fairness of the evaluation process.
Legal Issues
A. Administrative Law and Procedural Fairness
The Consortium of NLUs, though not a statutory body, performs a public function of high importance. Under principles of administrative law, it is bound by duties of care, transparency, and procedural fairness.
Errors in question-setting and evaluation, if unaddressed, may be deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
B. Contractual and Statutory Obligations
An implied contractual relationship exists between candidates and the examination authority: in exchange for application fees, candidates are entitled to a fair and error-free process.
Courts have in prior instances held that negligent conduct in such settings can justify judicial intervention, either through re-grading, grace marks, or re-examination in extreme circumstances.
C. Fundamental Rights Implications
Article 14 jurisprudence emphasizes non-arbitrariness in state action. When errors distort rankings and admissions, affected candidates are deprived of equal protection and a level playing field.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that fairness in selection processes is a constitutional requirement.
Role of Authorities
A. Consortium of NLUs
As the central administrator, the Consortium bears primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy in examination conduct. The CLAT 2025 scam revealed shortcomings in question paper vetting, lack of transparency in objection handling, and unclear communications.
B. National Law Universities and Experts
The drafting and proper review of questions come under ambit of examination committee made by professors of NLUs and subject experts. The flawed and disputed questions reveal lack of clarity amidst the body.
C. Judiciary as Oversight Mechanism
Judicial intervention in this scam illustrates courts’ reasoning to treat exam conducting bodies as subject to constitutional norms. Courts act as guardians of fairness where institutional mechanisms are inadequate. However, this is very limited to only where errors are blatant.
D. Civil Society and Media
Student groups, NGOs, coaching institutes, and the press raised concerns, ensuring that the issue was not confined to courtroom litigation. NGOs also raised the linked issue of CLAT’s high application fees, framing accessibility as part of the broader fairness debate.
Press reported articles about this scam written by professionals. The users also expressed disappointment on Twitter.
Judicial Action
A. Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court’s single bench order on 20th December 2024 recognized specific erroneous questions and mandated corrective steps. This precedent underscored judicial willingness to scrutinize technical aspects of entrance tests.
Further, the 23rd April 2025 order by division bench ordered the consortium to revise answers of 4 questions.
B. Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of transfer petitions and SLP, highlighted the seriousness of the Consortium’s lapses and directed remedial measures.
- It ordered correction of five questions.
- Expressed dissatisfaction with the casual manner the CLAT exam is made, which decides the future of lakhs of students.
- This gave rise to a suo moto petition by the court to prevent such scams in future.
- Although final judgement on this is awaited, the Court’s observations signal that fresh guidelines will be made for conduct of this exam.
Impact on Law and Policy
A. Need for a Regulatory Framework
The CLAT controversy strengthens calls for a statutory regime governing high-stakes examinations. Models such as the National Testing Agency (NTA) in other domains suggest the utility of a dedicated, professionally managed, and statutorily accountable body.
B. Procedural Safeguards
Future reforms should include:
- Double-blind vetting of question papers.
- External checks before examination conduct.
- Transparent online objections mechanisms with prompt timelines.
- Proper reasoning should be provided with the answer key.
Such safeguards could prevent repeated scams.
C. Transparency and Access
The scam has made court to direct the consortium to provide a transparent mechanism and proper working committee for grievance redressal.
D. Precedential Value
Judicial intervention in CLAT 2025 may lay down enduring standards of administrative accountability for all competitive examinations, thereby influencing educational law and policy beyond the immediate context.
Conclusion
The CLAT-2025 controversy demonstrates how fragile the legitimacy of high-stakes examinations is when administrative lapses occur.
Courts have rightly intervened, but sustainable solutions lie in systemic reforms that include statutory regulation, proper vetting mechanisms, and transparent grievance redressal.
The scam, though unfair and disrupting, offers an opportunity to enhance the governance of national entrance tests in India.
References
- Aditya Singh (Minor) vs Consortium Of National Law Universities, 2024 SCC ONLINE DEL 9040
- “SC pulls up NLU consortium over errors in CLAT-2025,” Hindustan Times (Jan. 2025)
- “Consortium Of Law Universities Warns CLAT Applicants About Fake Websites,” NDTV (Jan. 2025)
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
- Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309
- INDIA CONST. art. 32 & 226
- LawCTopus, “CLAT 2025 Errors: Consortium Draws Criticism for Lapses” (Dec. 2024)
- Anjali Goswami & Ors. vs Registrar General, Delhi High Court, (2019) AIRONLINE DEL 143
- Siddhi Sandeep Ladda vs Consortium of NLUs, 2025 INSC 714
- Anam Khan vs Consortium Of National Law Universities, 2025 DHC 4915
