SIDDHI SANDEEP LADDAversusCONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ANOTHER

                   [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 judgment in the
      case of Disha Panchal and Others v. Union of India through
      the Secretary and Others1, while dealing with a batch of petitions
      highlighting improper conduct of CLAT, observed thus:
             “15. We have dealt with the matter only from the stand
             point of how best to compensate the candidates who lost
             valuable time while undergoing test. We must record that
             we are not at all satisfied with the way the examination
             was conducted. The body which was given the task of
             conducting the examination was duty bound to ensure
             facilities of uninterrupted UPS and generator facility. The
             record indicates complete inadequacy on that point. We
             therefore direct Union of India in the Ministry of Human
             Resources and Development to appoint a Committee
             to look into the matter and take appropriate remedial


1    2018 INSC 553 : (2018) 17 SCC 278
58                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


           measures including penal action, if any, against the
           body which was entrusted with the task. The Committee
           so constituted shall also look into the aspect of having
           completely satisfactory arrangements in future so that no
           such instances are repeated or reoccur in coming years.
           We must also observe that the idea of entrusting the
           task of monitoring the conduct of entire examination
           to different Law Universities every year also needs
           to be re-visited. The agreement with the examination
           conducting body, which was placed on record indicates
           that as against the amount made over to such examination
           conducting body, the fees charged from the candidates are
           far in excess. The committee shall bestow consideration
           to all these aspects after having inputs from such sources
           as it may deem appropriate including Bar Council of India
           and make a detailed report to this Court within three
           months from today.”
                                                   (emphasis added)

6.    It can thus be seen that this Court has constituted a committee to
      inter-alia look into the shortcomings in the conduct of CLAT. It can
      further be seen that this Court has specifically observed that the
      idea of entrusting the task of monitoring the conduct of the entire
      examination to different Law Universities every year also needs to
      be re-visited.
7.    We are informed that though the said committee’s report has been
      received, it has been placed before a Bench of this Court seized of
      WP(C) No. 600 of 2015 titled as “Shamnad Basheer v. Union of
      India and Others”. The sole petitioner in the said matter, however,
      has passed away. We shall, accordingly, after dealing with the present
      matter pass an appropriate order in this regard.
8.    Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, at the outset, we must
      state that 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.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            59

                       Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v.
          Consortium of National Law Universities and Another

9.   From the impugned judgment and final order of the Division Bench of
     the High Court, it is clear that several questions and/or the answers
     thereto were found to be not suitable. The High Court had, therefore,
     passed an order with regard to various questions. However, in the
     present appeals, we are only concerned with six questions, i.e.,
     Question Nos. 56, 77, 78, 88, 115 and 116. We shall deal with
     each question individually.

     A.    Question No. 56
10. The material provided alongwith Question No. 56 is as follows:
           “X. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 introduced
           the concept of environmental protection in an explicit
           manner into the Constitution though introduction of Article
           48A and Article 51A(g). 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. The recent judgment obliquely makes way for
           an enforceable right, and a potential obligation on the state
           unless the same is overturned by an Act of Parliament.
           India is signatory of various international environmental
           conservation treaties under which India has the binding
           commitment to reduce carbon emission. During the COP
           21, India signed Paris Agreement along with 196 countries,
           under which universally binding agreement was made
           to limit greenhouse gas emission to levels that would
           prevent global temperatures from increasing to more than
           1.5 degree Celsius before the industrial revolution. India
           has committed to generating 50% of its energy through
           renewable resources and will generate 500 GW of energy
           from non-fossil fuels by 2030, reducing the carbon emission
           by 1 billion ton. Additionally, India has committed to achieve
           net zero carbon emission target by 2070.
           Supreme Court’s March 21, 2024 verdict builds on the
           bulwark of jurisprudence in place since 1986, and, through
           various other judgments, the Supreme Court has recognized
           the right to clean environment along with right to clean
           air, water and soil free from pollution which is absolutely
           necessary for the enjoyment of life. Any disturbance with
60                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          these basic elements of environment would amount to
          violation of Article 21. It also establishes duty of the state
          to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment.
          Although right to clear environment has existed, by
          recognizing the right against climate change it shall
          compel the states to prioritize environmental protection
          and sustainable development.”
11. Question No. 56 and the answer options provided thereunder are
    as follows:
          “56. As per the aforementioned passage and decision of
          the Supreme Court:
          a.   The fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural
               resources is upon the State only.
          b.   Citizens alone have the fundamental duty to preserve
               and protect natural resources.
          c.   Both the state and citizens have the duty to preserve
               and protect natural resources.
          d.   State has the duty to maintain ecological balance
               and citizens have the right against climate change.”
12. It can thus be seen that the answer option (a) that the fundamental
    duty to preserve and protect the natural resources is upon the State
    only, is totally wrong which is found to be so even on a perusal of
    the material provided.
13. Similarly, the answer option (b) that the citizens alone have the
    fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural resources, is
    equally wrong.
14. According to Respondent No.1, the answer option (d) that the State
    has the duty to maintain ecological balance and citizens have the
    right against climate change, is the correct option.
15. No doubt that if a candidate on a reading of the material provided
    and by applying logic and reason selects the answer option (d), it
    would be a correct answer.
16. However, before we reach a conclusion it will also be appropriate to
    refer to the answer option (c) which states that both the State and
    the Citizens have the duty to preserve natural resources.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            61

                       Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v.
          Consortium of National Law Universities and Another

17. Perusal of the first paragraph of the material provided by Respondent
    No.1 to answer Question No. 56 would reveal that it is stated in
    second sentence itself 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.
18. Shri Raj Shekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
    Respondent No.1, has attempted to justify the stand of Respondent
    No.1 by submitting that the phrase used in the second sentence
    is that “it is the State and its residents” who have a Fundamental
    Duty to protect and preserve their natural resources. According
    to Respondent No.1, therefore, the use of the word “citizens” as
    provided in answer option (c) is not appropriate and the only correct
    answer is option (d).
19. We are amazed that such a stand has been taken by Respondent
    No.1, which is expected to be led by scholars and experts in the
    field of legal education.
20. This Court, time and again, has emphasized that it is the duty of
    both the State and its citizens to protect and preserve the natural
    resources. We, therefore, fail to understand as to why a candidate
    who has marked answer option (c) should not be awarded the marks
    for this question.
21. Perusal of paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment and final order
    passed by the Division Bench of the High Court would show that the
    High Court has come to the considered conclusion that option (d) is
    the only correct answer.
22. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court qua Question
    No. 56 and further direct the Respondent No.1 to award positive
    marks to all the candidates who selected either answer option (c)
    or (d) and only those candidates who selected either answer option
    (a) or (b) should be given the negative marks in Question No. 56.

     B.    Question No. 77
23. Coming next to Question No. 77. The material provided for the said
    question is as follows:
           “XIII. The Contract Act 1872 deals with contract law in
           India, its rights, duties, and exceptions arising out of it.
           Section 2(h) of the Act gives us the definition of a contract,
62                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


          which is simply an agreement enforceable by law. To
          understand the difference between void agreements and
          voidable contracts it is important to talk about sections 2(h),
          2(a), 2(i), 2(d), 14, 16(3) and 15, 24-28 of the Indian
          Contract Act. Void agreements, are fundamentally invalid
          making them unenforceable by default.
          These agreements cannot be fulfilled as they consist of
          illegal elements and they cannot be enforced even after
          subjecting it to both parties. However, in the case of
          voidable contract, the agreement is initially enforceable but
          it is later on denied at the option of either of the parties
          due to various reasons.
          Unless rejected by a party, this contract will remain valid
          and enforceable. The party who is at the disadvantage
          due to any circumstance applicable to the contract has
          the ability to render the agreement void. A void agreement
          is void ab initio making it impossible to rectify any defects
          in it while voidable contracts can be rectified. In case of
          a void agreement, neither of the parties is subject to any
          compensation for any losses but voidable contracts have
          some remedies.
          A valid agreement forms a contract that may again be either
          valid or voidable. The primary difference between a void
          agreement and voidable contract is that a void agreement
          cannot be converted into a contract.”
      23A. Question No. 77 and the options provided thereunder are as
           follows:
               “77. An agreement made by an adult but involving
               a minor child where the signatory is a minor child
               himself, this agreement would be:
                     (a)    A valid and enforceable agreement
                     (b)    A voidable agreement
                     (c)    A void agreement
                     (d)    An agreement that cannot be enforced by
                            the minor”
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            63

                       Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v.
          Consortium of National Law Universities and Another

24. It is the contention of the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
    Respondent No.1, that even without having prior legal knowledge,
    upon reading of the material provided and by applying logic and
    reason, a candidate could have given the answer as answer option
    (b) i.e., a voidable agreement.
25. The Division Bench of the High Court has, however, in paragraph 23
    of the impugned judgment and final order come to the considered
    conclusion that to answer the said question, a candidate would require
    prior knowledge of law. The High Court, therefore, held Question
    No. 77 to be “Out of Syllabus” and directed that it be excluded and
    treated as withdrawn.
26. Even before us, it is sought to be urged by the learned counsel
    appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 so also by the learned
    Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the intervenors that answering
    the said question would not be possible unless a candidate has prior
    knowledge of law, specifically the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is
    further contended that in the absence of such knowledge, it is not
    possible to give the correct answer to the said question.
27. It is clear that the modality that is adopted by Respondent No.1 in setting
    the question paper is one of providing basic information in the form
    of reading material which precedes the question or set of questions.
28. Perusal of the material provided for Question No. 77 would clearly
    reveal that if a candidate applies logic and reason, they would be
    able to make out a distinction between what is a void agreement,
    what is a voidable agreement and what is a valid and enforceable
    agreement.
29. A reading of the aforesaid material makes it amply clear that
    unless rejected by a party, a voidable contract will remain valid
    and enforceable. The party who is at a disadvantage due to any
    circumstance applicable to the contract has the ability to render the
    agreement void.
30. It is thus clear that an agreement made by an adult but involving a
    minor child where the signatory is a minor child himself, would not
    make such an agreement either valid and enforceable, or void or
    an agreement that cannot be enforced by the minor but it will make
    it a voidable agreement i.e., it will be rendered void ab initio when
    the minor who has signed it chooses to reject the same.
64                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


31. As such, we find that even without having any prior knowledge of
    law, upon appreciation of the material provided and by applying
    logic and reason, a candidate can arrive at the answer to Question
    No.77.
32. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court qua Question
    No. 77 and further direct the Respondent No.1 to give positive marks
    to all those candidates who have given the answer as option (b) to
    the said question and all those candidates who have selected either
    option (a), (c) or (d) shall be given negative marks.

      C.   Question No. 78
33. Next is Question No. 78. The material provided for answering the
    said question is the same as that for Question No. 77.
34. Question No. 78 and the options provided thereunder are as follows:
           “78. Which of the following scenarios would most likely
           result in a void agreement?
               a.    An agreement signed by someone under duress
               b.    A contract with mutually agreed terms to sell
                     a house.
               c.    An agreement to pay 10 lakhs on getting a
                     government job.
               d.    A contract with a minor who understands the
                     terms.”
35. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
    Respondent No. 2 that the most appropriate answer is not option (c).
36. It is, however, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing
    on behalf of Respondent No.1, that answer option (c) would be the
    correct answer.
37. The Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 25 of the impugned
    judgment and final order has also rejected the contentions raised
    therein with regard to the deletion of Question No. 78.
38. We are in agreement with the High Court that the answer option
    (c) is the correct answer for Question No. 78. We, therefore, do not
    interfere with the finding of the High Court insofar as Question No.
    78 is concerned.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          65

                       Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v.
          Consortium of National Law Universities and Another

     D.    Question No. 88
39. Coming next to Question No. 88. The material provided for the said
    question is as follows:
           “Read the information carefully and answer the questions
           based on the seating arrangement:
                “Ram, Shyam, Rohit, Mohit, Rohan, Sohan,
                Mohan, Rakesh and Suresh are sitting around a
                circle facing the centre. Rohit is third to the left of
                Ram. Rohan is fourth to the right of Ram. Mohit
                is fourth to the left of Suresh who is second to
                the right of Ram. Sohan is third to the right of
                Shyam. Mohan is not an immediate neighbour
                of Ram.”
40. Question No. 88 and the options provided thereunder are as follows:
           “88. Who is second to the left of Rakesh?
                      (a)   Ram
                      (b)   Mohan
                      (c)   Mohit
                      (d)   Data inadequate”
41. We are informed that Respondent No.1 has itself deleted question
    No. 85, which reads thus:
           “85. What is Rakesh’s position with respect to Rohan?
                      (a)   Eighth to the right of Ram
                      (b)   Fourth to the left
                      (c)   Fifth to the right
                      (d)   Fifth to the left”
42. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
    behalf of the Respondent No.1 before the Division Bench of the
    High Court that the answer to Question No. 88 should be option (d).
43. The Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 33 of the
    impugned judgment and final order had decided not to interfere with
    the answer provided by Respondent No.1 to Question No. 88 i.e.,
    answer option (d).
66                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


44. We, however, find that there is not a significant difference between
    Question No. 85 and 88. The material provided for Question No. 88
    is also the same as that for Question No. 85. In our view, therefore,
    if the Respondent No.1 thought it fit to delete Question No. 85, it
    ought to have deleted Question No. 88 as well.
45. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court qua Question
    No. 88 and further direct Respondent No.1 to delete Question No. 88.

      E.   Question Nos. 115
46. Next, we come to Question No. 115. The material provided for the
    said questions is as follows:
           “XXI. According to the estimates of the World Inequality
           Report 2022, in India, men earn 82 percent of the labour
           income, whereas women earn 18 percent of it. A woman
           agriculture field labourer makes Rs. 88 per day lesser
           than her male counterpart, according to the Ministry
           of Agriculture’s data for 2020-21. While a man is paid
           Rs. 383 a day on an average, a woman makes a mere
           Rs. 294 a day. The gap in their daily wages is more than
           the cost of two kilograms of rice. This gap differs from State
           to State. Field laborers, for instance, make the most money
           in Kerala. While a man gets Rs. 789 per day, a woman is
           paid Rs. 537. While this is the highest amount paid to a
           woman labourer in a State, it is also Rs. 252 lesser than
           what her male counter part was paid. As of 2020-21, Tamil
           Nadu has the highest gender wage gap among agriculture
           field laborers at 112 per cent. It is followed by Goa (61 per
           cent) and Kerala. The wage gap in the lowest in Jharkhand
           and Gujarat (6 per cent), but the women laborers there get
           paid Rs. 239 and Rs. 247 per day, respectively.
           Men earn more than women across all forms of work,
           the gap greatest for the self-employed. In 2023, male
           self-employed workers earned 2.8 times that of women. In
           contrast, male regular wage workers earned 24% more than
           woman and male casual workers earned 48% more. The
           gender gap in earnings is still a persistent phenomenon.
           However, there are differences in trends. The gender gap
           has increased for self-employed workers, while falling for
           regular wage workers. Male regular wage workers earned
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           67

                        Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v.
           Consortium of National Law Universities and Another

           34% more than women from 2019 to 2022, with the gap
           falling to 24% in 2023.”
47. Question No. 115 and the options provided thereunder are as follows:
           “115. If the wages paid to men working in agricultural sector
           in Goa are Rs. 335 on an average, what is the amount of
           wages paid to women in the region.
                (a)   Rs. 204 approx.
                (b)   Rs. 330 approx.
                (c)   Rs. 239 approx.
                (d)   None of these”
48. It can be seen that the Division Bench of the High Court, in paragraph
    44 of the impugned judgment and final order, came to the conclusion
    that as the Respondent No.1 had itself given a wrong option as the
    answer, marks shall be granted to only those candidates who had
    attempted the Question No. 115.
49. We, however, on a perusal of the material provided, find that for
    answering Question No. 115, the candidates will have to undergo a
    detailed mathematics analysis, which is not expected in an objective
    test.
50. We, therefore, set aside the direction issued by the Division Bench of
    the High Court qua Question No. 115 and further direct Respondent
    No.1 to delete Question No. 115.

      F.   Question No. 116
51. Last, we come to Question No. 116. The material provided for
    answering the said question is the same as that for Question No. 115.
52.   Question Nos. 116 and the options provided thereunder are as follows:
           “116. With reference to the information in Ques. 115 above,
           which region of the below mentioned states offers the least
           wages to the women workers in any sector.
                (a)   Gujarat
                (b)   Goa
                (c)   Kerala
                (d)   Jharkhand”
68                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


53. Perusal of Question No. 116 reveals that the said question is based on
    the information provided in Question No. 115. Therefore, if Question
    No. 115 is deleted, Question No. 116 must also be deleted as a
    necessary corollary.
54. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, found that there
    was a cross referencing error in Question No. 116 in Sets ‘B’, ‘C’
    and ‘D’ only. It, therefore, in paragraph 46 of the impugned judgment
    and order directed that all candidates with Sets ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ be
    granted marks. The same relief was not granted to candidates with
    Set ‘A’ since Set ‘A’ did not have this error.
55. Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits
    that the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court is correct
    but the consequential direction is not appropriate. It is further fairly
    submitted that Respondent No.1 is willing to withdraw the question
    across all four sets so as to ensure that all candidates are scored
    out of the same total number of questions.
56. We find that in order to put all the candidates on equal footing,
    Question No. 116 be deleted from all the Sets as well.
57. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the Division Bench of the
    High Court qua Question No. 116 and further direct Respondent
    No.1 to delete Question No. 116.
58. In the result, we dispose of the appeals and all the intervention/
    impleadment application(s), by modifying the judgment and final
    order dated 23rd April 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the
    High Court to the above extent.
59. We direct the Respondent No.1 to amend the answer key, revise the
    marksheet and re-publish/notify the final list of candidates forthwith
    and commence with the counselling within 2 weeks from today.
60. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

      Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan