LexSIDDHI SANDEEP LADDA versus CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 55 : 2025 INSC 714 Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6907 of 2025) 07 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Consortium of National Law Universities-respondent no.1 has been framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT); In an examination, several questions and/or the answers were found to be not suitable; The High Court had passed an order with regard to various questions. Headnotes† Education – Law Education – Common Law Admission Test – Framing of questions – Six questions in dispute – Each question dealt with individually – Respondent no.1 directed to amend the answer key, revise the marksheet and re-publish/ notify the final list of candidates forthwith. [Paras 10-22, 23-32, 33-38, 39-45, 46-50, 51-59] Education – Law Education – Common Law Admission Test – Framing of questions – Deprecation of: Held: This Court must express its deep anguish regarding the callous and casual manner in which the respondent no.1 has been framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test, an examination on the basis of which meritorious candidates get entry into the prestigious National Law Universities across the country – In academic matters, the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere, inasmuch as they do not possess the requisite expertise for the same – However, when the academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely affects the career aspirations of lakhs of students, the Court is left with no alternative but to interfere. [Paras 4, 8] Case Law Cited Disha Panchal and Others v. Union of India through the Secretary and Others, 2018 INSC 553 : [2018] 5 SCR 12 : (2018) 17 SCC 278 – referred to. * Author 56 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Constitution of India; Contract Act, 1872. List of Keywords Education; Law education; Common Law Admission Test; Framing of questions; National Law Universities; Improper conduct of CLAT; Monitoring examination; Academic matters; Career aspirations. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6907 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2025 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 1250 of 2024 With Civil Appeal Diary No. 24223 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: K K Venugopal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Deepak Nargolkar, Sr. Advs., Soumik Ghosal, Siddhant Kohli, Vishal Sinha, Ms. Samruthi Gangadhar, Gaurav Singh, Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Dhanesh Relan, Krishan Kumar, Nitin Pal, Harsh Kumar Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Raj Shekhar Rao, Balbir Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Arun Sri Kumar, Shubhansh Thakur, Wamic Wasim, Anurag, Hanuman Singh, Abhishek Anand, Rahul Kumar, M. P. Devanath, Sameer Rohatgi, Namat Suri, Kartikey Singh, Udhyam Mukherjee. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and final order in LPA No.1250 of 2024 dated 23rd April 2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, [2025] 7 S.C.R. 57 Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another “High Court”). The Division Bench of the High Court was seized of the Letter Patents Appeals which were filed challenging the judgment and final order dated 20th December 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as a batch of Writ Petitions which were filed across various High Courts and which had been transferred to it by this Court. 3. We have heard Shri K. K. Venugopal and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant; Shri Raj Shekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Consortium of National Law Universities (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.1”); Shri Dhanesh Relan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2; Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the intervenor(s). 4. At the outset, we must express our deep anguish regarding the callous and casual manner in which the Respondent No.1 has been framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred to as, “CLAT”), an examination on the basis of which meritorious candidates get entry into the prestigious National Law Universities across the country. 5. This Court has on a previous occasion by way of a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.