CLAT 2025 Result Hearing: The Delhi High Court is likely to hear the matter of the CLAT 2025 results today, April 21, 2025. Prior to this, the court had reserved its decision in a number of petitions challenging the CLAT UG 2025 results. Soon, an official conclusion on the issue is anticipated. The hearing will also cover petitions related to the CLAT PG 2025 results soon.
On April 9, a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recognised the growing stress among students, asserting that the uncertainty over the results was unjust to the candidates. The bench asserted the need for resolving issues concerning the undergraduate results to prevent further delays, while making it clear that postgraduate issues would be dealt with separately.
The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025, conducted on December 1, 2024, is the gateway for admission to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses at National Law Universities (NLUs). Even though the results were announced on December 7, 2024, some of the candidates approached the courts with complaints of alleged mistakes in the question paper and answer key.
Earlier, on February 6, 2025, the Supreme Court permitted a plea by the CLAT consortium to transfer all the connected cases to the Delhi High Court, so that they could be heard collectively. A few petitioners had welcomed the move, observing that the court had already recognized mistakes in two UG exam questions in a separate case.
On December 20, 2024, a single judge of the Delhi High Court ordered the consortium to revise the UG results, after it found errors in two questions of the answer key. The order was made after a petition filed on December 7 had asked for correction in a few questions. The court ruled that the errors were "demonstrably clear" and not acknowledging them would be unfair.
Though the consortium moved the single judge's order on appeal to a division bench, a student also objected to the rejection of his applications on two other issues. On December 24, 2024, the division bench refused interim relief on the grounds that there was no prima facie error in the earlier judgment and permitted the consortium to go ahead with declaring the results according to the directions of the court.
