Delhi High Court
A Vaishnavi (Minor) Through Her Father … vs Consortium Of National Universities … on 23 April, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 09.04.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 23.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 4157/2025
SHIVRAJ SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr.Rishab Parakh
and Mr.Prathambir Agarwal, Advs.
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
+ W.P.(C) 4375/2025
YAJAT SEN .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
+ LPA 1250/2024, CM APPLs. 76373/2024 & 76374/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
ADITYA SINGH (MINOR) .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Mr.Arjeet Gaur,
Mr.Naveen Malik, Mr. Suryansh
Jamwal and Ms.Sakshi Arora, Advs.
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
+ LPA 1251/2024, CM APPL. 76410/2024 & CM APPL. 76411/2024
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES...Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
versus
ADITYA SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER...Respondent
Through: Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Mr.Arjeet Gaur,
Mr.Naveen Malik, Mr.Suryansh
Jamwal and Ms.Sakshi Arora, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 2363/2025
HARSHITA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. T. Archana, Mr. Archit Mishra
and Mr. Digvijay, Advocates
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
+ W.P.(C) 2365/2025
MASTER TIAMBAK EASHWAR THROUGH HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN VASUDHA THIAGARAJAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. T. Archana, Advocate
versus
THE CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND
ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
+ W.P.(C) 2366/2025
PRABHAS KUMAR (MINOR) THROUGH HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN MR. PRAKHAR KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yash Dadriwal and Mr. Amol
Jagtap, Advocates
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
+ W.P.(C) 2367/2025
ASLESHA AJITSARIA (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY
HER FATHER VINAY AJITSARIA .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NLUS AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Mr.
Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. Prithviraj
Dey and Mr.Vipul Verma, Advocates
for R-3.
+ W.P.(C) 2516/2025
HARDIK GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Aniket D Agrawal and Mr.
Ram Krishna Rao, Advocates
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
Mr. Vardhan Kaushik with Mr.
Prithviraj, Advocates for R-3.
+ W.P.(C) 2517/2025
HARSHIT GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Aniket D Agrawal and Mr.
Ram Krishna Rao, Advocates
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
+ W.P.(C) 2559/2025
A VAISHNAVI (MINOR) THROUGH HER FATHER SHRI T.
ARUN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Mr. Rohit
Sinha, Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak and
Mr. Agnibha Chatterjee, Advocates
versus
CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES THROUGH ITS
PRESIDENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
Shubhansh Thakur and Mr. Wamic
Wasim, Advocates for Consortium of
NLU.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
1. A peculiar situation has arisen in this batch of writ petitions and
Letters Patent Appeals inasmuch as, the appeals arise from the judgement
dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(C)17138/2024 whereas, the writ petitions objecting to certain
questions, which were filed across various High Courts, have been
transferred to this Court by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated
06.02.2025. In this piquant situation, this Court is examining each and every
question objected to by the candidates (petitioners) before this Court, while
mindful of the reason and rationale opined by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in the judgment dated 20.12.2024 impugned in LPA
Nos.1250/2024 and 1251/2024.
2. The admission notification for Common Law Admission Test (CLAT-
2025) was issued by the respondent/Consortium inviting applications for
admission to Undergraduate (UG) programme leading to award of B.A.,
LL.B or B.Com., LL.B degree. The petitioners submitted their online
applications seeking admission to five year Integrated Law Programmes
conducted by NLUs. The entrance examination was scheduled on
01.12.2024 wherein the petitioners appeared and were assigned different sets
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
out of the four sets of question papers i.e. Sets A, B, C and D. The question
paper comprised of 120 questions wherein one mark was to be awarded for
every correct answer and 0.25 mark was to be deducted for every incorrect
answer.
3. The respondent/Consortium released a Provisional Answer Key (for
all four paper sets of the UG-CLAT 2025) vide notification dated
02.12.2024. Vide the same notification, it also invited objections to the
question paper and to the Provisional Answer Key. The candidates were to
file their objections by 03.12.2024 by 4:00 PM, upon payment of a nominal
fee for every question objected to. After consideration of the objections so
filed by the candidates, the final answer key was published on 07.12.2024.
4. Aggrieved by the final answer key, the present writ petitions have
been filed whereas LPA Nos. 1250/2024 and 1251/2024 have been filed
impugning the judgment dated 20.12.2024 rendered by learned Single
Judge.
5. Before adverting to the facts of each LPA and writ petition, it would
be apposite to consider the law settled by a catena of judgements rendered
both by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as Coordinate Benches of this
Court in respect of the principles governing as to how and in what
circumstances could a writ Court intervene and examine the correctness of
such provisional or final answer key and the extent thereof. In this context, it
would be pertinent to extract relevant portions of such judgements which are
as under:-
(i) Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
(2018) 2 SCC 357:-
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to
highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-
evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of
right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit
re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it)
then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated
very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has
been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of
a candidate–it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best
left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed
on that assumption; and30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority
rather than to the candidate.”
(ii) Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal, 2024 SCC OnLine
Del 7144:-
“10. Before we advert to the specific question under challenge, we may
address a preliminary objection raised by Ms Lakra to the effect that courts
are ordinarily proscribed from interfering with answers suggested in answer
keys to examinations, as these pertained to the academic sphere, which is, to
some extent, no man’s land to the Judge. This is especially so in cases where
the challenge has been examined by subject experts, whose opinion is
ordinarily entitled to deference. There are several decisions which hold that
courts do not possess the requisite expertise to sit in appeal over the
decisions of the subject experts and that therefore, such challenges should, if
at all, be entertained with a pinch of salt.
11. That said, however, it is equally obvious that the sphere of judicial review
cannot be all together foreclosed when such challenges arise. There may be
gross cases, or cases in which it is evident without any necessity for
ratiocination or intricate reasoning that the answer under challenge is
palpably incorrect. In such case, the interests of substantial justice have to
prevail, and students who have attempted the examination cannot be allowedSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 8 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
to suffer merely because of an obviously incorrect answer suggested by the
subject experts.
12. One of us (C. Hari Shankar J.) has had an occasion to examine the law
on this aspect in considerable detail in Om Prakash Verma v. National
Testing Agency. After a chronological excursion through Kanpur
University v. Samir Gupta, Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati
University, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg H.P. Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Ran Vijay
Singh v. State of U.P., Rishal v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, the
following takeaway emerged:
(i) Circumspection is the general rule, especially where experts have
considered the objections raised to the answer key.
(ii) It is, however, equally the rule that there is no absolute
proscription against courts examining the challenge to the key
answers, even where experts have opined. The law does not commend,
or even recommend, a “hands-off approach”.
(iii) In an appropriate case, the court can even examine, for itself, the
correctness of the key answers under challenge, in which process the
court is also empowered to refer to authoritative textbooks on the
subject, especially those which form part of the students’ curriculum.
(iv) Where the question is simple, and not admitting of any complexity,
and can command only one answer, which is apparent to the court,
the court is not proscribed from taking a view based on its own
perception of the question to take an extreme example, the sum of two
and two. That, however, would have to be in a rare case in which the
answer is so apparent that there can be no doubt about it, and not one
where the opinion of someone with greater expertise would help, or
where there is ambiguity.
(v) In any case, the guiding principle is that the general rule against
accepting the suggested answer key stands relaxed only where the
suggested answer is proved to be wrong, not by an inferential process
of reasoning or rationalisation, but clearly and demonstrably wrong,
in that no reasonable body of men well versed in the subject would
regard the key answer as correct.
(vi) Another guiding principle, which the court was required to bear
in mind in such cases, is that, where it was beyond doubt that the key
answer was wrong, it would be unfair to penalise students for not
giving the suggested, demonstrably wrong answer. Any refusal on the
part of the court to interfere, even in such a case, would amount to a
serious illegality.
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 9 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
(vii) Where questions were unacceptably vague, the principle
advocated in Saumil Garg case is required to be followed. Any student
who attempted all or some of said vague questions would be entitled
to be marked out of a total after deleting the marks assigned to the
questions which she, or he, had attempted.
(viii) Even where a large number of key answers were found to be
incorrect as in Rajesh Kumar case, which involved 45 wrong key
answers out of 100 it would not be justifiable to direct cancellation
and reholding of the examination. Revaluation of the papers on the
basis of the corrected answer keys would still be the only correct
approach.
(ix) Interference has, therefore, to be only in “rare and exceptional
cases”, and to a “very limited extent”.
(x) In the event of doubt, the benefit of doubt would go to the
examining authority, not to the candidate.
(xi) The general principle is that relief cannot be restricted to the
candidates who approached the court, but must be extended to all who
are similarity situated. While so doing, the court can direct that the
revaluation, would not result in any negative impact on candidates
who had attempted the disputed questions and whose answers
corresponded to the suggested answer key.
13. Thus, while circumspection is expected of courts while dealing with
challenges to answer keys in examinations, a hands-off approach is not
always advocated. If the court is satisfied that the answer provided in the
impugned answer key is obviously incorrect, so that allowing the answer to
remain would result in injustice, the court has necessarily to step in and set
aright the situation. Any Judge who, perceiving obvious injustice taking place
before him, professes inability to interfere, breaches his solemn oath of office.
Howsoever circumspect an approach the law may advocate, the approach
can never be so circumspect as would allow injustice to occur, unredressed.”
(iii) Salil Maheshwari v. High Court of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine
Del 4563:-
“7. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be heard to
challenge the answer key to a particular question, after having discovered
that he was awarded no marks for his response, it being at variance with the
answer key. Here, the last date for communicating objections was 23.6.2014,
and the respondent released its response to the objections on 2.7.2014. The
results were only published on 8.7.2014. It appears that the petitioner did notSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 10 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
think it necessary to object to this question before the deadline for objections,
but only sought to object after the results were published on 8.7.2014 by way
of this petition filed on 1.8.2014. This Court finds that the petitioner was
therefore estopped from raising a challenge at this belated stage, since a
challenge cannot be advanced against a selection process only after the
candidate has discovered his or her unsuccessful performance in the
process. See Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC
171 and Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486. Consequently, no
findings will be recorded in regard to this question.”
6. Having regard to the above, we now proceed to scrutinize and
examine each question to which parties have raised their objections.
In re: Question no.5 (Passage no.I) of the Master Booklet:-
7. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent/Consortium submitted that so far as Question no.5 of the Master
Booklet is concerned, the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest
error in doubting the answer as per the final answer key which is option (d),
“Sellers of stolen hardware” and contrary to the well settled law, substituted
her opinion in considering the answer as option (c), “auctioneers of cheap
bags”, as the correct answer. According to the learned senior counsel, the
passage provided was in relation to English Comprehension and the “Sellers
of stolen hardware” was not a legal trade or an occupation. In other words,
he emphasized that the sellers of stolen hardware could not be considered to
be a legal trade or occupation, even if the question was related to English
Comprehension and had nothing to do with legal reasons. In that context, he
urged that auctioneers of cheap bags will surely be a trade which could not
be stated to be illegal or unlawful.
8. So far as Question no.5 of the master booklet is concerned, we have
read the passage in the context whereof the question was framed. The
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 11 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
passage actually referred to “an auctioneer of cheap cloth”. The question
posed was, “Which among the following is not a trade or occupation
represented in the pathway running through the town hall park?”. It is
manifest from the passage that there is no reference to “auctioneers of cheap
bags”, thus, the answer to the Question no.5 of Master Booklet clearly and
manifestly could only be option (c), “auctioneers of cheap bags”, without
applying any legal reasoning. It is pertinent to note that the question was not
formed to find the legality or otherwise of the trade, but what is not a trade
or occupation in the pathway, as per the passage. It is also to be noticed that
this question formed part of “English Comprehension” and not “Legal
Reasoning”. Thus, it is clear that it is an apparent mistake/error which was
rightly considered by the learned Single Judge while upholding option (c) as
the correct answer. Notwithstanding the above analysis, we may, at the cost
of repetition, emphasize that it is relevant and of great significance to
appreciate the fact that the passage related to “English Comprehension” and
had no relation, whatsoever, to deal with a legal context. On that count too,
the argument of learned senior counsel does not impress us. To that extent,
we uphold the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge and direct that
necessary consequences shall follow.
In re: Question no.14 (Passage no.III) of the Master Booklet :-
9. In respect of the Question no.14 of the Master Booklet, learned senior
counsel for the respondent/Consortium submitted that within the window
period provided by the respondent/Consortium, none of the candidates had
availed of such facility and only one of the petitioners herein namely Ms.
Harshita had objected to, for the very first time in the writ petition bearing
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 12 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
W.P.(C) 2363/2025 preferred by her. He stoutly contended that this type of
objections being raised at this stage before this Court under Article 226 is
not permissible. According to him, this question, not having been objected
to, was neither referred to the Expert Committee nor reviewed further by the
Oversight Committee. In such circumstances, learned senior counsel
submitted that this Court cannot examine the said objection in place of an
Expert Committee and substitute its own view. He relies upon the judgment
of this Court in Salil Maheshwari (supra), wherein it was held that an
individual cannot be heard to challenge the answer key to a particular
question after discovery that no marks have been awarded particularly when
such individual did not think it necessary to object to the question before the
deadline for submission of objection were not availed of.
10. We find from the record that the submission of learned senior counsel
is factually correct. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 2363/2025 did not ever file
any objection within the window period provided by the
respondent/Consortium and only after declaration of the final results, has
petitioned this Court to consider her objection for Question no.14 of the
Master Booklet. In case this Court were to entertain such highly belated
objections, it would open a pandora‟s box. We can take note of the fact that
sympathy in the above context would entail an unending multitude of
litigations, what with any and every individual filing writ petition at any
time on their whims and fancies resulting in there being no finality to the
examination process or to the final result. This is clearly impermissible.
Additionally, there is no averment in the pleadings with respect to this
question. In our considered opinion, no such question, which has not been
challenged at the appropriate stage, can or should be permitted to be
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 13 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
objected to before a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
would also be relevant to note that Courts are not sitting as expert bodies or
subject matter experts over the questions formulated by the examination
conducting authority; nor can a Court assert expertise over multifarious
subjects. It is trite that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh
(supra) and this Court in Shubham Pal (supra), reiterated the principle that
if two views are possible, then the view taken by the examination
conducting authority should be preferred and upheld. We concur with the
view taken in Salil Maheshwari (supra) that an individual cannot be
permitted to challenge the answer key in relation to a particular question
after discovery that no marks have been awarded, particularly when such
individual did not think it necessary to object to the question before the
deadline for submission of objection. Ergo, since in the present matter, the
petitioner had admittedly not submitted her objection within the window
period provided, it would preclude her from raising the objection before this
Court for the first time. On that score, we refrain from rendering any opinion
one way or the other.
In re: Question no.37 (Passage no.VII) of the Master Booklet :-
11. With respect to Question no.37 from the Master Booklet, Mr. Rao,
learned senior counsel argued that from the context contained in the passage
relatable thereto, the provisional answer key provides option (c) as the
correct answer. He contended that the passage was replete with references as
to how the relations between India and China were developing; and the
opening up of dialogue between the two premiers/Heads of State after a
passage of 5 years was emphasized. He also submitted that the other answers
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 14 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
as provided, did not reflect the correct status of the Indo-China relations,
particularly in the excerpt contained in the passage. He also stated that this
passage was relatable to Current Affairs which included General Knowledge
as well, as the topic of examination and that the question posed and the
answer provided, have to be understood in that context. Learned senior
counsel emphasized that the query related to what the BRICS Summit had
achieved, and thus the only correct and possible answer was option (c),
“Diplomatic dialogue between India and China”.
12. Though at the initial stage when the provisional answer key was
published, 6 candidates/aspirants had submitted their objections, however,
before us, only 1 such aspirant has raised an objection in relation to
Question no.37 of the Master Booklet, namely Mr. Triambak (in W.P.(C)
2365/2025). According to Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel, this issue was
referred to the Expert Committee who did not recommend any change, thus
it was not further referred to the Oversight Committee. In contrast thereto,
the petitioner urged that in the said Summit, BRICS currency was also
launched therefore, option (d), “All of the above” would be the proper and
correct answer.
13. We agree with the submission of the respondent/Consortium. The
reason is not far to see. A reading of the passage relatable to Question no.37
of the Master Booklet discloses that it is replete with references to the status
of Indo-China relations primarily, and there is no reference at all to the
launch of any currency, much less BRICS Currency. That apart, the
argument of the petitioner herein overlooks and ignores the fact that the
other remaining options, viz., (a) and (b) are not borne from the passage.
Thus, looked at any which way, the only possible and plausible answer in
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 15 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
the context of the passage appears to be option (c). Thus, the issue in respect
of Question no.37 of the Master Booklet is resolved in favour of the
respondent/Consortium.
In re: Question no.49 (Passage no.IX) of the Master Booklet :-
14. Question no.49 of the Master Booklet was also objected to by about
148 aspirants after publication of the provisional answer key. However, no
change was recommended by the Expert Committee nor was it further
referred to the Oversight Committee. This question was related to the
passage regarding passing of the “Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam Bill,
2023” respecting reservation of one third of all seats in the Lok Sabha, State
Legislative Assemblies and Delhi, for women. The promulgation of this Bill
was linked to implementation of two long term exercises of census and
delimitation. According to Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel, the passage
coupled with the query in Question no.49 of the Master Booklet clearly
ruled out any possibility of an answer other than option (d), “None of the
above”. He contended that answers in options (a), (b) and (c) were neither
the correct answers nor probable. He also stated that a mere look at the three
options other than option (d), ex facie, demonstrate those to be clearly out of
place and are not made out.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that answer
provided in option (c), “Will come to force after Census” is the correct
answer. The rationale, according to some of the petitioners, is that the Bill
was to be passed upon conducting census and delimitation and since option
(c) did refer to “census”, it would be the correct answer even if it did not
refer to “delimitation”. The petitioners also insist that so long as there is a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 16 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
correct answer in the form of option (c), answer in option (d) would not be
available and therefore, the final answer key to that extent is demonstrably
and palpably wrong.
16. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, so far as Question no.49
of the Master booklet is concerned which is part of Current Affairs including
General Knowledge, the view taken by the respondent/Consortium appeals
to us. Surely the examination conducting authority has the leverage to
provide questions which may create puzzling situations requiring the
aspirant to be careful in opting for the right answers. Moreover, such an
Authority does indeed and must be deemed to have the right to pose
confounding situations, though neither absurd nor ambiguous and frame
appropriate questions, lest the ability to test and evaluate the aspirants is
lost. Institutions must also be given the leeway to choose competent
candidates, though not as a right, but to ensure excellence in higher
education. The question under consideration does exactly that. The option
(c) contended to be correct, at the first blush, appears to be attractive,
however, on careful reading, it is not a complete or correct answer. The
passage referred to the passing of the Bill subject to census “and”
delimitation. Read plainly, it is apparent that the Bill could be passed only
after both census and delimitation is carried out. Thus, option (c), “Will
come to force after Census” being incomplete, may not be the correct
answer and the option (d), “None of the above” appears to be the correct
answer. It is trite that this Court does not sit as a super expert over the
subject matter experts who have evaluated and considered the right answers;
nor can Courts, ordinarily, substitute their opinion to that of the subject
matter experts and can only examine whether the answers are absolutely
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 17 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
absurd or palpably or demonstrably wrong. This burden is upon the
individual raising the challenge. Clearly, the petitioners have not been able
to muster such doubt in our mind. The objections to this question are
therefore rejected.
In re: Question no.56 (Passage no.X) of the Master Booklet :-
17. In regard to Question no.56 of the Master Booklet, around 451
objections were submitted after the publication of the provisional answer
key. Out of those, three petitioners had objected to the same apart from two
others who have directly approached this Court. The question under enquiry
appears to have been formulated from the topic “Supreme Court of India
bolts Right to Life with climate justice”. Though the passage commences
with the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court ruling that both the State
and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their
natural resources, yet, traverses and concludes with such duty obligated on
the State and recognizing the right of the citizens against climate change.
The final answer key projected option (d), “State has the duty to maintain
ecological balance and citizens have the right against climate change” as
the correct answer. Whereas, the petitioners claim option (c), “Both the state
and citizen have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources” to be
the correct answer.
18. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel submits that in the context of the
aforesaid passage, options (a), (b) and (c) cannot be the correct answers as
the passage concludes with duties assigned to the State and the rights of the
citizens over the climatic change affecting them. In support of the
submission, learned senior counsel brings attention of this Court to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 18 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
underlined portion of the passage extracted for the convenience of the Court
in Vol. II of the compilation handed over during arguments. He emphasizes
that the underlined portions at the end of the passage, “It also establishes
duty of the state to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment.
Although right to clean environment has existed, by recognising the right
against the climate change it shall compel the state to prioritize
environmental protection and sustainable development.”, clearly
demonstrate that option (d), in contradistinction to the other options, is the
only correct answer. He also contends that it is not enough for the petitioners
to merely show that another option is a plausible answer. According to him,
option (d) has to be shown as palpably and demonstrably wrong which the
petitioners have failed to do.
19. In contrast, the petitioners bring our attention to the first three lines of
the passage which states that “In many judgments, the Supreme Court ruled
that both the state and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and
protect their natural resources”. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, having regard to the clear specification in the passage, option (c)
in the said circumstances would be the correct answer. Alternatively, they
also urge that since the passage itself contains references to both underlined
portions, the respondent/Consortium has been unable to demonstrate as to
why option (c) could not be an answer. Thus, they contend that either option
(c) can be considered as the right answer or the question itself may be
deleted as being ambiguous and the marks be given to all the candidates who
have attempted to give answer to the subject question.
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of Question
No.56 of the Master Booklet, we tend to agree with the submissions of the
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 19 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
respondent/Consortium. Though it is correct that the underlined portion in
the first part of the passage appears to conform to the option (c), yet the
underlined portion at the end of the passage demonstrates the law as is
applicable on date. The passage and the question posed have to be
understood in the context that it pertains to Legal Reasoning. If one were to
read the first portion of the passage, it is apparent that the topic is in respect
of a recent judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court which has paved way
for an enforceable right of a citizen and a corresponding potential duty on
the State, unless the same is overturned by an Act of the Parliament. In the
concluding portion, referring to the latest judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of March 21, 2024 the passage clearly indicates that disturbance to
elements of environment would amount to violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 and also emphasizes the duty of the State to
maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. Penultimately, the
passage declares that the right against climate change has been recognized
compelling the State to take the burden of protecting the environment. Read
in the above context, there is no doubt that option (d) is the only correct
answer. Moreover, in conformity with the ratio laid down in Ran Vijay
Singh (supra) and Shubham Pal (supra), where there are two possible
views, the view taken by the examination conducting authority should be
preferred. In the present case, the petitioners have not succeeded in
establishing that option (d) is palpably and demonstrably wrong or incorrect.
Thus, in view of the above, we reiterate option (d) as the correct answer.
In re: Question no.77 (Passage no.XIII) of the Master Booklet:-
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 20 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
21. The Question no.77 of the Master Booklet is in respect of “contracts”
as defined under Section 2(h) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and pertains to
the topic Legal Reasoning. The passage refers to void and voidable
agreements and cursorily defines and expresses distinction between both. In
that context, Question no.77 states, “An agreement made by an adult but
involving a minor child where the signatory is a minor child himself, this
agreement would be:”. It provides four options out of which according to
the respondent/Consortium, option (b), “A voidable agreement” is the
correct answer. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel defended option (b) on the
ground that once it is indicated in the passage that a party who is at a
disadvantage due to any circumstance applicable to the contract, it has the
ability to render the agreement voidable coupled with reference to the fact
that a voidable agreement is liable to be rectified and that certain voidable
agreements have remedies in law. He contended that learned Single Judge
had rightly relied upon the judgments of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman & Anr. vs. Rahul
Singh & Anr.; (2018) 7 SCC 254, to conclude that where the Expert
Committee had concluded that the answer key was correct and agreed with
the justification by the paper setter, the Courts should not step in unless the
error is manifest and palpable.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant and the petitioners hotly contested
the aforesaid submissions. It is their contention that the passage does not
refer to a minor or to the incapacity of a minor to enter into contract. They
also contended that though the passage refers to and shows the distinction
between void and voidable agreements, no such distinction on the basis of a
minor being incapable of entering into contract is at all discernible from the
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 21 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
plain reading of the passage. They also contended vehemently, that the
passage is conspicuous by the absence of the word “minor”. In other words,
the petitioners as also the appellant contended that the passage being
ambiguous on the aforesaid aspect, the question should be considered to be
“Out of Syllabus” and should be deleted and treated as withdrawn. That
apart, petitioners stoutly contended that though the syllabus in respect of
Legal Reasoning stated that aspirants need not have prior knowledge of law,
yet, the question as posed is, ex facie, contrary to such condition. In that
context too, they contended that the Question no.77 ought to be withdrawn.
23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a plain reading of
the passage, we find that the passage neither refers to minors nor gives any
indication as to their incapacity or lack of competence to enter into or
execute any contract. All that the passage refers to is a bare definition of
void and voidable agreements coupled with slight broad distinctions
between both. Other than that, there is apparently no reference at all to the
word “minor”. The learned Single Judge was right to opine that Courts are
not to enter into minute or finer disputes and leave it to the wisdom of the
Expert Committee in accordance with the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgments. Notwithstanding the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, the
answer to Question no.77 would, in our opinion, require prior knowledge of
law regarding who would be competent to enter into a valid agreement,
despite the syllabus “Legal Reasoning” providing that aspirants need not
have any prior knowledge of law. This would be violative of the conditions
specified by the respondent/Consortium. Though we are conscious that
answers to such questions are not meant to be apparent on the face of the
passage, yet in the present context there being no reference to the aforesaid
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 22 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
factual discrepancies, we are persuaded to rule otherwise. In that view of the
matter, the Question no.77 is held to be “Out of Syllabus” and is excluded
and treated as withdrawn.
In re: Question no.78 (Passage no.XIII) of the Master Booklet:-
24. So far as Question no.78 of the Master Booklet is concerned, this too
arises from the aforesaid Passage no.XIII. In this context, Mr. Rao, learned
senior counsel stoutly defended option (c), “An agreement to pay 10 lakhs
on getting a government job”, as the correct answer. He stated that the
question itself indicated clearly as to which of the options, would “most
likely” result in a void agreement. He emphasized that as submitted in the
aforesaid paragraph, the definition as also the distinction between void and
voidable agreement has been clearly specified in the passage itself.
Moreover, according to him, there is no ambiguity at all, and any aspirant
with a general knowledge of law would be able to answer the said question.
In contrast, the appellant and the petitioners hotly contested the submissions
of the respondent/Consortium. The petitioners have given option (d), “A
contract with a minor who understands the terms.”, as answer and are ad
idem that option (c) is definitely not the correct answer. They also
unanimously contended that option (a) as also option (d) cannot be ruled out
for the reason that an agreement signed by someone under duress and a
contract with the minor who understands the terms are also void agreements.
According to learned counsel in unison, if there is more than one correct
answer to the question, the question needs to be treated as inapplicable, and
marks for attempting such question ought to be given to all the candidates.
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 23 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
25. We are unable to accede to the contentions and submissions addressed
on behalf of the candidates in respect of Question no.78 of the Master
Booklet. Even if we were to agree with the submission that there are more
answers than one, it is apparent that the question itself states “most likely
result in a void agreement”. In other words, the proposed answer ought to
have a greater tendency and likelihood of the transaction being declared a
void agreement. Though the other two answers may result in void or
voidable agreements, the question specified only a void agreement. In that
view of the matter, it is clear that option (c), “An agreement to pay 10 Lakhs
on getting a government job” is obviously a void agreement being illegal
and violative of law. Moreover, the examination conducting authority is
neither required nor mandated to provide answers in a platter. It is trite that
this Court does not sit as a super expert over the subject matter experts who
have evaluated and considered the right answers; nor can Courts, ordinarily,
substitute their opinion to that of the subject matter experts and can only
examine whether the answers are absolutely absurd or palpably or
demonstrably wrong. This burden is upon the individual raising the
challenge. Clearly, the petitioners have not been able to muster such doubt
in our mind. The objections to this question are therefore rejected.
In re: Question no.79 (Passage no.XIII) of the Master Booklet :-
26. The next question objected to is Question no.79 of the Master
Booklet. It is relevant to note that only 12 aspirants had submitted their
objections to the provisional answer key within the time provided in the
window period. Before this Court, only one petitioner-in-person Mr.Yajat
Sen (in W.P.(C) 4375/2025) has challenged the provisional answer key who
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 24 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
admitted that he was not one of the 12 aspirants as he never submitted his
objections at all. The petitioner-in-person argued that the question posed is
out of syllabus on the premise that the Passage no.XIII does not at all
remotely refer to the word “consideration”. According to him, the word
consideration in a contractual context has great relevance and significance to
the contract itself, yet unless some indication was provided in the passage
itself, an aspirant would have to have prior knowledge of law to attempt the
said question. In order to support his contentions, he drew our attention to
the syllabus regarding “Legal Reasoning” which prescribes that aspirants
need not have any “prior knowledge of law”. Predicated thereon, he
contested that in contravention thereto, Question no.79 clearly required prior
knowledge of law without which the same could not be attempted. He thus
prays that the question in hand may be treated as “out of syllabus” and be
deleted and withdrawn.
27. Though we appreciate the arguments rendered by the petitioner-in-
person, yet we are not inclined to interfere with the objections raised qua
Question no.79 of the Master Booklet. This Court is not inclined to interfere
for the reason that the petitioner-in-person never objected at all when the
respondent/Consortium had provided a window period for raising such
objections post publication of the provisional answer key. This
lacunae/default propels this Court to not interfere in the final answer key as
declared by the respondent/Consortium, lest it may have a deleterious effect
and work to the disadvantage of the candidates who may have attempted and
given the correct answers. In case any such indulgence is shown by a writ
Court to such persons who are apparently fence sitters, it would result in
injustice and at times travesty of justice. We cannot countenance any such
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 25 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
situation. This Court is fortified in its view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Salil Maheshwari (supra), wherein it was held that an
individual cannot be heard to challenge the answer key to a particular
question after discovery that no marks have been awarded particularly when
such individual did not think it necessary to object to the question before the
deadline for submission of objection were not availed of. Thus, the
arguments rendered in objection to Question no.79 are rejected.
In re: Question no.80 (Passage no.XV) of the Master Booklet:-
28. The petitioner in person Mr. Yajat Sen also raised objection to
Question no.80 of the Maser Booklet on the ground that the same is out of
syllabus as it requires prior knowledge of law and is violative of the
conditions specified in the syllabus regarding the section Legal Reasoning.
According to him, the answer of the respondent/Consortium mentioned is
option (d), “When the President of India gives the Assent”, would itself
imply that an aspirant is to have a prior knowledge of law as to how and in
what manner a Bill is passed in the Parliament and at what stage would it
become a law in force. He further urged that the question would also require
pre-requisite knowledge of law to understand that it is only when the
President of India gives an assent that a Bill would formally become the law
of the land. In that context, Mr. Sen vehemently contended that the question
being clearly “out of syllabus” ought to be deleted and withdrawn with the
direction to the respondent/Consortium to give consequential benefits.
29. We have heard the petitioner-in-person in respect of Question no.80.
Apart from rejecting the same on the ground that no objection was raised by
the petitioner during the window period provided by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 26 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
respondent/Consortium, we also additionally reject the same since the
passage clearly and unambiguously stated, “The Bill had received assent
from the President of India on the 13th February 2024”. Thus, the answer
being discernible clearly from the passage, as also for the reason that the
petitioner-in-person miserably failed to show or indicate that the answer in
option (d) is either palpably or demonstrably wrong, the said objection is
rejected.
In re: Question no.81 (Passage no.XV) of the Master Booklet:-
30. The next question is in respect of Question no.81 of the Master
Booklet. It is informed that 69 aspirants had challenged the provisional
answer key within the window period provided. Out of those, one petitioner
Mr.Hardik Garg has filed the W.P.(C) 2516/2025 objecting to the said
question apart from one more petitioner Mr.Harshit Garg (in W.P.(C)
2517/2025) who had not challenged the same originally. The passage
relatable to the said question is Passage no.XV which referred to an Act
promulgated to prevent unfair means employed in public examinations with
provisions providing for imprisonment and fine apart from barring the
service provider from being assigned any responsibility for conduct of
public examination for a period of four years. In the aforesaid context, the
question was posed relatable to various punishments/penalties imposed upon
“a service provider” for the violations contemplated in the Act. According
to the respondent/Consortium, the correct answer is option (d), “none of the
above”, whereas the two petitioners had opted for option (b), “be liable to
be punished with imposition of a fine up to ₹1 crore”, as the correct answer.
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 27 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
31. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel while defending option (d)
emphasized that so far as the service provider is concerned, the violations
would make such person liable to be punished with imposition of fine up to
₹1 crore and recovery of proportionate cost of the examination apart from
being barred for a period of four years. Contending that the passage itself
provided clear answer as to what would be the maximum fine and the
proportionate costs which could be recovered coupled with the service
provider being barred for a period of four years, there was no ambiguity to
attempt the answer. He forcefully contended that the answers in options (a)
and (c) were wrong and option (b) is incomplete, leaving no option other
than option (d) as the correct answer. In contrast, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner contended that the answer in option (b), though may not be
the complete answer but cannot be said to be an incorrect answer. He thus
submits that option (d), “None of the above”, stated to be the correct answer
by the respondent/Consortium is palpably and demonstrably wrong and
incorrect. In that view of the matter, he contended that the objection may be
held in favour of the petitioners.
32. The submissions on behalf of the candidates qua Question no.81 of
the Master Booklet does not commend to us. The Passage no.XV clearly
provided that “A service provider, engaged by the public examination
authority for conduct of examinations, shall also be liable to be punished
with imposition of a fine up to ₹1 crore “and proportionate cost of
examination shall also be recovered” from it, according to the Act. Such
service providers, shall also be barred from being assigned with any
responsibility for the conduct of any public examination for a period of four
years”. We have to bear in mind that Passage no.XV is in context of Legal
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 28 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
Reasoning. Having regard thereto, it is apparent that a violation by a service
provider would make it liable not only to be punished with imposition of a
fine up to ₹1 crore, but also proportionate cost of examination. Between
both the penalties, the word “and” has been employed. Generally, the word
“and” would be used between two events or instances or situations to
connote jointedness and cannot be taken to be separate or disjunctive.
Having regard thereto, we fail to understand as to how the submission of the
petitioners would establish that the final answer key is palpably or
demonstrably wrong. For the aforesaid reason, we are not inclined to
interfere with the answer in option (d) as stated by the
respondent/Consortium.
In re: Question no.88 (Passage no.XVI) of the Master Booklet:-
33. With respect to Question no.88 of the Master Booklet posed in
relation to Passage no.XVI, Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted
that the Oversight Committee had suggested that the answer key should be
changed to option (d) by holding that the data provided is inadequate.
Having regard to the intricacies involved in coming to the correct answer of
the question and having analyzed the question, we are of the opinion that the
data provided for coming to the correct conclusion appears to be inadequate.
However, since no conclusion about the same can be drawn without entering
into the question intricately, we are also of the opinion that such exercise by
the Court would be outside the parameters of judicial review to be applied in
such matters. Therefore, we will go by the opinion expressed by the
Oversight Committee, which has suggested that the correct answer to this
question will be „option-(d)‟ i.e. “data inadequate”. Accordingly, amongst
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 29 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
the candidates, whosoever has attempted this question and opted for option
„(d)‟ should accordingly be given full marks assigned to this question, and
answer book of all the candidates shall accordingly be evaluated.
In re: Question no.91 (Passage no.XVII) of the Master Booklet:-
34. Question no.91 of the Master Booklet pertains to Passage no.XVII in
respect of homelessness faced by many countries in the world. The said
question was objected to by 224 aspirants after the publication of provisional
answer key. None of the aspirants who had originally submitted the
objection is before this Court and only one petitioner Mr. Triambak (in
W.P.(C) 2365/2025), has raised an objection qua the question before this
Court. The objection is compounded also by the fact that there is a split
opinion between two subject matter experts, one suggesting option (d), “All
of the above” as suggested by the paper setter, and the other suggested
option (c), “Homelessness increases due to major turbulence on the
economic and cultural aspects”, as the correct answer. The Oversight
Committee accepted the change to the answer of paper setter and
recommended option (c) as the correct answer. Learned senior counsel for
the respondent/Consortium defended the acceptance of option (c) by the
Oversight Committee as the correct answer on the suggestion of one of the
experts, since the option (a) & (b) as provided were not borne out of the
instant passage. He submitted that once option (a) & (b) were not found to
be borne out of the passage, axiomatically, option (d), “All of the above”
would be incorrect. Thus, on the consideration of the objections raised,
following the subject matter expert‟s advice, the Oversight Committee
changed the answer from option (d) to option (c). Additionally, learnedSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 30 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
senior counsel also reiterates the ratio in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and
Shubham Pal (supra) in support of the aforesaid submission to the extent
that – (i) Courts ordinarily should not interfere and substitute its own view in
place of the experts since the Court itself is incapable of any such expertise
over the subject matter and (ii) where two views are possible, the view taken
by the expert body or the examination conducting authority ought to be
preferred.
35. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that
the answer in option (d) is borne out fully from the Passage no.XVII coupled
with the fact that it was the original answer as per the provisional answer
key which has been unnecessarily reviewed by the Oversight Committee.
Learned counsel also contended that where there was a split opinion in the
two member Expert Committee, one of which reiterated the answer
suggested by the original paper setter, the review of the same by the
Oversight Committee was beyond its mandate. In view thereof, the
petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of the review exercised by the
Oversight Committee and reversion to the original answer in option (d).
36. Having perused the Passage no.XVII and examining the explanation
provided for by the respondent/Consortium, it is apparent that answer in
option (a) & (b) appear to be not borne out of said passage nor can they be
said to be deduced. Resultantly, option (d) which stated “All of the above”
would be incorrect and the exercise of review was rightly exercised by the
Oversight Committee in changing the answer to option (c). We hold so.
Thus, the objection raised to Question no.91 of the Master Booklet is
rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 31 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
In re: Question no.93 (Passage no.XVII) of the Master Booklet:-
37. The question no.93 of the Master Booklet arises from the Passage
no.XVII and thus, we are avoiding reference to the contents of the passage
“in extenso”. Around 26 aspirants are understood to have submitted
objections to the provisional answer key and one of them Mr.Triambak has
filed petition bearing W.P.(C) 2365/2025. Apart from that, two other
petitioners Mr.Hardik Garg (in W.P.(C) 2516/2025) and Mr.Harshit Garg (in
W.P.(C) 2517/2025), have raised objections for the first time before this
Court. So far as this question is concerned, yet again there is a split opinion
suggested by two subject matter experts. One expert suggested option (d),
“All of the above”, which was originally suggested by the paper setter as the
correct option whereas the other suggested option (c), “Poor mental health
predisposes individuals to homelessness and homelessness exposes
individuals further to particularly severe health problems”. Learned senior
counsel for the respondent/Consortium submitted that the question posed
was in relation to homelessness in case of mental illness which may be
amplified for certain reasons enumerated as four different answers. He
contended that though the paper setter and one of the subject matter experts
suggested option (d), yet the Oversight Committee concurred with the other
subject matter expert for preferring option (c) as the correct answer. While
reiterating the aforesaid submission of the same passage in relation to
Question no.91 of the Master Booklet, he contended that answer in option
(a) & (b) are similarly not borne out from the plain reading of the said
passage. He stated that in such a situation while considering the objections
received, and also examining the split opinion of both the subject matter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 32 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
experts, the Oversight Committee preferred option (c) as the correct answer.
He submitted that once option (a) & (b) were not found to be borne out of
the passage, axiomatically, option (d), “All of the above” would be
incorrect. Thus, on the consideration of the objections raised, following the
subject matter expert‟s advice, the Oversight Committee changed the answer
from option (d) to option (c). Additionally, learned senior counsel also
reiterates the ratio in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and Shubham Pal (supra) in
support of the aforesaid submission to the extent that – (i) Courts ordinarily
should not interfere and substitute its own view in place of the experts since
the Court itself is incapable of any such expertise over the subject matter and
(ii) where two views are possible, the view taken by the expert body or the
examination conducting authority ought to be preferred.
38. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that
the answer in option (d) is borne out fully from the Passage no.XVII coupled
with the fact that it was the original answer as per the provisional answer
key which has been unnecessarily reviewed by the Oversight Committee.
Learned counsel also contended that where there was a split opinion in the
two member Expert Committee, one of which reiterated the answer
suggested by the original paper setter, the review of the same by the
Oversight Committee was beyond its mandate. In view thereof, the
petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of the review exercised by the
Oversight Committee and reversion to the original answer in option (d).
39. Having perused the Passage no.XVII and on examining the
explanation provided for by the respondent/Consortium, it is apparent that
answer in option (a) & (b) appear to be not borne out of said passage nor can
they be said to be deduced. A perusal of the passage and the question posed
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 33 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
clearly indicate that the question has been posed in respect of homelessness
in case of mental illnesses, whereas in the entire passage there is no
reference, even remotely, to mental illness being one of the contributors to
homelessness or even the corollary has been referred to. In that situation, the
question was rightly reviewed by the Oversight Committee by changing the
answer to option (c). We hold so. Thus, the objection raised to Question
no.93 of the Master Booklet is rejected.
In re: Question no.97 (Passage no.XVIII) of the Master Booklet:-
40. Question no.97 of the Master Booklet pertains to Passage no.XVIII
regarding how lifestyle is creating an epidemic of mental ill health. In that
context, Question no.97 sought an answer in the form of “most suitable title”
for the said passage. At the relevant stage, 8 of the aspirants are stated to
have submitted their objections to the provisional answer key, none of
whom have filed any writ petition before this Court. Only one petitioner,
namely, Mr.Hardik Garg (in W.P.(C) 2516/2025) has raised objections to
the said question. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel in the context of Question
no.97 submits that answer in option (a), “Lifestyle and Mental Health”, is
the correct answer on the ground that a plain reading of the passage
unambiguously indicates that the lifestyle being led today by the youth is
leading to various forms and incidences of mental illnesses being suffered
by them. In that context, he contended that answers in option (b), (c) and (d)
are in relation to the outcome of economic growth, impact of technology or
language and cultural change respectively, which may be contributors for
mental illness suffered by the youth directly and thus cannot be
independently considered as title to the passage. In other words, according toSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 34 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
him, the passage clearly refers to and indicates various parameters of
lifestyle being led today, which have majorly contributed to the mental
illness suffered by the youth. He contends that therefore, there was no
requirement for the Expert Committee or the Oversight Committee to
recommend any change.
41. In contrast, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
passage also relates to various technological developments taking place
which too contributes to the mental illness suffered by the youth of today.
By referring to the passage, learned counsel seeks to impress upon us that
the topic answer in option (c), “Impact of Technology on the Youth”, is well
founded as the said passage discloses a study on a large data base which are
based on the youth owning smart phones which are directly connected with
the mental illnesses being suffered by them. Premised thereon, learned
counsel vehemently opposes the submission that option (a) is the correct
answer.
42. Having heard the parties, two things seem to be apparent while
reading the passage as also the title of the news item wherefrom the passage
has been summarized, (i) the title of the news item itself appears to be
indicative of the answer since it states “How our lifestyle is creating an
epidemic of mental ill health” and (ii) the passage unambiguously
commences with reference to how lifestyles are impacting the youth and
proceeds to refer to how the electronic gadgets are impacting their mental
health which is clearly discernible from plain reading of the passage. This is
also clear from the narration in the passage which actually examines various
factors and parameters like technological advancements, higher financial
capacities and consumption of ultra processed foods resulting in mental ill
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 35 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
health. It is also significant to note that the question posed was not “a
suitable title” but “the most suitable title”. Having regard thereto, we find
that the petitioners have failed to project option (a) as palpably or
demonstrably wrong. Thus, we maintain “hands off approach” as coined by
learned Single Judge.
In re: Question no.114 (Passage no.XX) of the Master Booklet:-
43. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 2365/2025, namely, Mr. Triambak had
raised objections within time after the provisional answer key was published
and has also filed the writ petition before this Court. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner on instructions, stated that the petitioner accedes
to the answer in option (d) as contained in the Master Booklet in reference to
Passage no.XX and thus, does not wish to continue the challenge. In view
thereof, no expression of opinion is being rendered by this Court.
In re: Question no.115 (Passage no.XXI) of the Master Booklet:-
44. In respect of Question no.115 of the Master Booklet regarding
Passage no.XXI, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel very fairly
admitted, on instructions, that the answer in option (a), “Rs.204 approx.” as
provided in the provisional answer key has been found to be incorrect and
the answer in option (d), “None of these” is the correct answer. Since the
respondent/Consortium itself had given a wrong option as an answer without
rectifying or reviewing the same, no fault can be found with the candidates
for giving correct or incorrect answers. As a result, he submitted that
consequential benefits may be granted to all the candidates who had
attempted this question. In view of the fair admission by the learned senior
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 36 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
counsel on behalf of the respondent/Consortium, we direct that only those
candidates who had attempted Question no.115 of the Master Booklet,
correctly or incorrectly, shall, as a consequence, be granted the marks
indicated against the said question.
In re: Question no.116 (Passage no.XXI) of the Master Booklet:-
45. With reference to Question no.116 of the Master Booklet which was
based on Passage no.XXI as considered by us above in relation to Question
no.115 of the Master Booklet, Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel fairly
submitted that an error had crept in the various sets handed over to the
aspirants for participating in CLAT UG 2025. He stated that Question
no.116 “With reference to the information in Ques. 115 above, which region
of the below mentioned states offers the least wages to the woman workers
in any sector?”, was posed in reference to the information/answer to
Question no.115 of the Master Booklet meaning thereby that in attempting
answer to Question no.116, the aspirants would necessarily have to relate the
same to the answer given by them to Question no.115. Concededly, in all the
sets, though Question no.115 of the Master Booklet may not have been
assigned the same number, yet the Sets „B‟, „C‟ & „D‟ referred to wrong
question numbers in the corresponding question i.e. Question no.116 of the
Master Booklet. To make things clear, Mr. Rao, referred to the table
mentioned by the appellant/petitioner in the written submission of the appeal
filed herein which is reproduced hereunder:-
Question No. as Question Question No. Question No. Question
per Master No. as per as per Set B as per Set C No. as per
Booklet Set A Set D
115 (about 109 112 118 117Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 37 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
wages paid to
women in Goa)
116 (With 110 113 and seeks 119 and seeks 118 and
reference to answer in answer in seeks
information in reference to reference to answer in
Question 115, Question 109 Question 115 reference to
which region Question
offers least 115
wages to women
workers?
46. We have carefully scrutinized the table as extracted hereinabove and
accede to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as
also learned senior counsel for the respondent/Consortium. Since the error as
occurred on the part of the respondent/Consortium itself, while publishing
Sets „B‟, „C‟ & „D‟ of question papers, no fault can be found with the
candidates for giving or not giving correct or incorrect answers. In view of
the fair admission by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the
respondent/Consortium, we direct that all the candidates who participated in
CLAT UG 2025 with respect to the Sets „B‟, „C‟ & „D‟ of question papers
shall, as a consequence, be granted the marks indicated against the said
question. Since Set „A‟ did not have this error, we do not deem it fit to
interfere with the marks obtained by all those candidates who answered
correctly.
47. The parties before this Court have copiously referred to many
judgements out of which we have referred to and relied upon some of them
which appear to be applicable to the facts of the present appeals and writ
petitions. The other judgements which seem to be not relevant or laying
down the ratio already settled have not been referred to for the sake of
brevity.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C)
Digiltally Signed4157/2025 & connected matters Page 38 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34
48. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis and conclusions, we direct
the respondent/Consortium to revise the marksheet and to re-
publish/renotify the final list of selected candidates within 04 weeks from
date. It is clarified that the respondent/Consortium shall apply the aforesaid
evaluation to each of the appellant and petitioners before this Court, the
candidates who may have attempted certain questions considered
hereinabove as also all the candidates in respect of whom certain benefits
can be granted in view of the aforesaid analysis. Resultantly, the appeals as
also the writ petitions are disposed of.
49. We put on record our appreciation for the hard work and efforts made
in collating details of relevant information in respect of the questions
considered by us above, by Mr.Rajshekar Rao, learned senior counsel
alongwith his team members for the respondent/Consortium as also
Mr.Dhanesh Relan and his team for collecting all the information from
various petitioners and learned counsel before us and placing the same very
conveniently in the written submission and the documents filed in support
thereof.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(TUSHAR RAO GEDELA)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2025
“shailndra”/MJ/ms/kct/yrj/rl
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed W.P.(C) 4157/2025 & connected matters Page 39 of 39
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:23.04.2025
15:05:34