CASE NAME: Anam Khan and Others v. Consortium of National Law Universities
Anam Khan and Ayush Agrawal, the petitioners who took the CLAT 2025 exam, brought up concerns about excessive objection fees, mistakes in the provisional answer key, and inconsistent procedures.A petition alleging procedural errors and arbitrary treatment of candidates during the Common Law Admission Test postgraduate exam 2025 (CLAT PG 2025) was denied by the Supreme Court on Monday. The petitioners were advised by a Division Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to go to the relevant High Court rather than the Supreme Court immediately. “Precedents state that we are not permitted to serve as a court of first instance. The Article 32 petition is not one that we are inclined to consider. The Court said the petitioners could go to the jurisdictional High Court.
Additionally, the Court denied the petitioners’ request to halt the admissions process until a High Court heard the case. The Court noted that after refusing to consider the plea, it is unable to provide such temporary relief. The Bench went on to say, “The balance of convenience is not in favor of stay.” Meanwhile, the petitioners’ attorney said that because the test takers are from different states, it could be challenging to decide which High Court to approach. The Court recommended that the Delhi High Court be consulted in order to resolve this issue.
After that, they (the candidates from various states) can travel to the Delhi High Court, where you can file it if you have permission. The Court stated, “Please, you can file with permission from the High Court.”It’s interesting to note that the Bench also noted that the petitioners’ arguments regarding purported flaws in the answer key seemed to contain errors. “I’ve seen a few inquiries. You’re mistaken about (some of) them. CJI Khanna said, “I don’t want to get into all that.” Anam Khan and Ayush Agrawal, the two petitioners who took the December 1 CLAT PG 2025 exam, expressed dissatisfaction with procedural irregularities, mistakes in the provisional answer key, and exorbitant objection filing fees.
They then filed the petition against Consortium of National Law Universities alleging procedural lapses and arbitrary treatment of applicants at the exam. The petitioners claim that a number of procedural errors at testing facilities led to unfair treatment, compromising the test’s integrity and fairness. The suit claims that in accordance with the Consortium’s Test Day Instructions, Anam Khan, who took the exam at Government Law College in Mumbai, received her question booklet at 1:50 PM. Ayush Agrawal, who took the test at the Acropolis Institute of Law in Indore, on the other hand, was given his question booklet after 2:00 PM, which significantly shortened the amount of time he was allowed to spend on the test. It was argued that such treatment violates Article 14 of the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.
Additionally, the petitioners disputed a number of the answers in the provisional key and claimed that at least 12 questions had inaccuracies. It was argued that these mistakes show the Consortium’s carelessness, which has an impact on the candidates’ merit ranking. Additionally, candidates had to pay ₹1,000 for each objection, which the petitioners believe is excessive considering that the Consortium’s own negligence caused the problems. According to the plea, the Consortium neglected to guarantee answer key accuracy even though they charged ₹4,000 as an application fee. In addition, the petitioners objected to the schedule for releasing the counseling answer key.
The final answer key was issued on December 9, with results on December 10 and counseling registration on December 11. It was argued that this schedule does not provide applicants enough opportunity to seek legal redress or challenge inaccuracies in the answer keys. As a result, the petitioners sought a hold on the publishing of the CLAT PG 2025 results and counseling until the final answer key was provided without errors.