CLAT 2025 SC Hearing: Petitions on Results May Be Transferred to Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 15 January 2025, indicated its preference to transfer all petitions challenging the results of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025 to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. These petitions, currently pending in various high courts, question alleged errors in the CLAT-2025 examination conducted on 1 December 2024 for admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes at National Law Universities (NLUs).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar issued a notice in response to transfer petitions filed by the Consortium of National Law Universities (CNLUs). The CNLUs sought to consolidate the multiple petitions filed in high courts and transfer them either to the Supreme Court or a single high court for efficient adjudication.

The petitions are being heard in the high courts of Delhi, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab and Haryana. The bench emphasised the need to send all cases to a single high court to ensure an authoritative and expedited resolution of the disputes. The CJI observed that the Punjab and Haryana High Court would be a suitable choice due to its prior jurisdiction on the matter and its high case disposal rate.

“The writ petitions pending in different courts should be dealt with by one high court, as it would be expeditious,” the bench stated, adding that notices were returnable in the week commencing 3 February 2025.

Several petitions were filed in December 2024 following allegations of incorrect questions in the CLAT-2025 examination. The Delhi High Court played a key role in these proceedings, with a single judge ruling on 20 December 2024 that errors were evident in two questions of the CLAT-UG 2025 exam. The court directed the consortium to revise the results accordingly. While the consortium challenged this order, a division bench of the Delhi High Court refused to issue an interim stay, allowing the consortium to implement the single judge’s decision.

Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the CNLUs argued for the consolidation of the petitions, suggesting the Karnataka High Court as an alternative. However, the Supreme Court remained inclined toward the Punjab and Haryana High Court for reasons of efficiency and its initial handling of the matter.