1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.551 OF 2018

Disha Panchal and Others        ….Petitioners

Versus

Union of India The Secretary  and Others  …. Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.554 OF 2018

Rishi Dutt        ….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Others  …. Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.621 OF 2018

2

Yash Singhania        ….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Others  …. Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.600 OF 2018

Akshat Aggarwal & Ors.        ….Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and Others  …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. These  petitions  highlight  improper  conduct  of  Common  Law

Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is a single

window online entrance test for admission to 19 prestigious National Law

Universities in the country.  The petitioners had appeared for said CLAT and

had faced various difficulties, which according to them, were occasioned as

a  result  of  mismanagement  by  respondent  Nos.2  and  3.   Some  of  the

3

difficulties  that  were experienced by the petitioners  and other  candidates

were:

A.  Questions of the examination did not appear on the screen at the

start, and were intermittently disappearing and re-appearing.

B.   The options to move to the next question, etc. stopped working

intermittently.

C.   Blank screens or frozen screens and software crashes.

D.   Invigilators were incompetent and unhelpful – in being unable to

help resolve glitches and in terms of their rudeness, when apprised of

the existence of glitches.

E.   Computers were dysfunctional and rebooting them did not help.

Resultantly,  the  effective  time  available  to  the  candidates  was  far

lesser  than the allotted time,  which in  turn caused great  prejudice to  the

candidates.

2. In addition to the petitions filed in this Court, some candidates also

approached various High Courts, where the petitions are still pending.  By

order dated 24.05.2018 this Court had said, “as the entire issue in reference to

CLAT Examination – 2018 is the subject matter in the present proceedings, it is

4

appropriate  that  no  High  Court  shall  proceed  with  the  hearing  of  pending

proceedings on the subject matter till further orders.”

3. On 25.05.2018 following order was passed by this Court:

“In  deference  to  the  observations  made by the  Court  during  the course  of  hearing  yesterday,  Respondent  Nos.2  and  3  have graciously agreed to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court, Mr. Justice M.R. Hariharan Nair, Dr. Santhosh Kumar G., Professor and Head, Department  of  Computer  Science,  Cochin  University  of  Science and  Technology.  The  Committee  will  be  chaired  by  Mr.  Justice M.R.  Hariharan  Nair  who  will  examine  every  singular representation/complaint  received online till  now and any further representation/complaint received till 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27thMay, 2018 and after due analysis, appropriate decision on case to case basis will be taken by the Committee.  

In the first phase, the representations/complaints already received and of all the writ petitioners before this Court as well as different High  Courts  may  be  scrutinized  and  appropriate  report/ recommendation/ decision thereon be recorded by the appropriate authority before 29th May, 2018 to be produced before the Court on 30th May, 2018.  

In the second phase, new/fresh representation/complaints received online upto 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27th May, 2018 be taken up for consideration  and, if possible, the scrutiny thereof be completed on the same lines as indicated above up to 29th May, 2018 and status report in that behalf be filed before the Court on 30th May, 2018.  

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that as soon as fresh/new representations/complaints are received online, attempt will be made to acknowledge the same contemporaneously as far as possible.  

We  appreciate  the  fair  stand  taken  by  learned  counsel  for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to offer dispensation of this nature within such a short time.

5

Learned  counsel  for  Respondent  Nos.2  and  3  submit  that  a dedicated email account will be created for this purpose of which publicity will be given on the official website of CLAT and will be notified on the official website very shortly within two hours from now.  

We make it clear that this order will also enure to the benefit of the writ  petitioners  who  have  filed  writ  petition  in  different  High Courts.  

Interim stay regarding proceedings pending before different High Courts will continue to operate till the next date of hearing.  

List the matters on 30th May, 2018.”

4. The Grievance  Redressal  Committee so constituted,  has  since  then

filed a  comprehensive report  enclosing certain annexures.   Copies  of  the

report as well as annexures were directed to be given to the learned counsel

appearing for the parties to enable them to assist this Court.  Paragraphs 4,

12 and 14 of the Report are as under:-

“4. The number of candidate writ petitioners as on 30-05-2018: 25  (Sl. Nos. 1-25 of Annexure – I of the first Report dated 29-05- 2018)

Number of complaints received up to the hearing of the case; i.e., 11.30 hrs on 25-05-2018 - 2676

Number of complaints received between 11.30 am and 7 p.m. on 25- 05-2018 - 115

Number of complaints received in the new e- mail id between 5.50 p.m. on 25-05-18 to 7.00 p.m. on 27-05-2018 - 5677.

6

12. The team of service providers representing the Sify provided

the Committee with display of the Audit Report and all Supporting

data available at the central server of the company. The names of

these officers are in Annexure -II (already submitted along with the

Report dated 29-05-2018). In certain cases the Committee felt that

the explanation of the Service Provider regarding alleged lapses was

essential.  The  details  so  obtained  are  in  Annexure  -III  (already

submitted along with the Report dated 29-05-2018).

14. On  a  perusal  of  the  various  complaints  raised  by  the

candidates, the Committee felt that they broadly fall under one or

more of the following categories:

1. Frequent login failures. 2. Change of machines / mouse and disruptions. 3. Questions not visible in full or in part. 4. Registered answers disappeared. 5. Heat and unfavourable environment. 6. Commotion and distraction. 7. Time extension not effective as there was no re log in. 8. Undue time extension was given to some. 9. Deliberate cheating by closure of browser. 10. Power failure and absence of UPS needing multiple log ins

and distraction of concentration. 11. Pre-examination preparation sessions  were ineffective;  very

often machines had to be changed and distracted. 12. Invigilators unhelpful.”

5. The matter was dealt with by the Committee in the light of the audit

report  and  the  data  made  available  relating  to  4690  candidates.   The

7

Committee  then  considered  the  matter  under  the  heading  “Details  of

appraisal” and made certain suggestions as under:  

“A.  Scrutiny of the data relating to 4690 candidates shows that some of the candidates got only lesser time than what is due to them for appearance in the examination.  These are categorized as follows:

1. candidate  who  got  deficiency  of  less  than  one  minute:  70 2. candidate who got deficiency of less than two minute: 140 3. candidate who got deficiency of more than one minute: 94

Thus  the  total  number  of  candidates  who  got  time  marginally deficient is 210 and including those who lost more than two minutes, it is 304.   

Similarly, the data analysis shows that –

i. 2276  of  them  had  a  single  log  in  session  right  from commencement of the examination till its culmination.

ii. 1899 of the applicants needed multiple log in sessions with no response  in  the  first  session.   This  comes  under  three  sub categories viz.

(1) Due  extension  of  time  was  not  given  in  892  cases involving  multiple  sessions,  out  of  which  623 candidates got effective time of 2 hours for completing the examination.

(2) Time extension given and availed: 558

(3) Time extension given and not availed: 449

iii. Multiple logins with response in first session: 515

14A*1.Clause 7 and 19 of Annexure XI, read with clause l and m (iii) of Annexure xii cast a duty on Sify Technologies to ensure that UPS and Generator facilities were provided so as to ensure facility of uninterrupted activity for the candidate.  The lapse in the matter appears to be the main cause which led to need for  frequent  re logins on the part of the candidate.

1* This para, also marked as para 14 in the report has been renumbered by us as para 14A

8

15. The CLAT of 2018 was fraught with various imperfections. The major defects found are categorized as follows:

i. The majority of complaints relate to failure of initial log in. Multiple log in appears to have affected the performance of the system.   Software  and  hardware  efficiency  will  depend  upon server capacity and efficacy.  Under Cl.8, page 8, of Ann.XII, the Service  Provider  was  duty  bound  to  provide  trouble-free software.   Common defect  of  initial  log  in  failure  must  have arisen from the hardware, software or network deficiencies.

ii. Conduct  of  a  test  of  this  magnitude  without  providing efficient software and computers to the candidates has resulted in avoidable interruptions in answering questions.

iii.  Infrastructural  defects  like  want  of/failure  of  the  air conditioning  systems  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  best performance  of  students  in  many  centres  in  the  examination conducted at the peak of summer.

iv. Power  failure  which  affected  many  centres  has  resulted  in loss  of  time  and  disturbance  to  the  concentration  of  mind required for a smooth performance in a competitive test.

v. Failure of invigilators to facilitate re-login which is essential for availing the benefit of extended time granted to compensate for lost time arising from power failure, system hanging, etc.

vi. Failure to grant extended time even in cases where the first log  in  attempt  failed  or  in  the  subsequent  attempt/s  the  time obtained is lower than what is prescribed, though such reduction was only marginal.

vii.To  redress  the  genuine  grievances  projected,  two  courses appear to be open.  They are:

1. The  cancellation  of  the  entire  test  and  re-conduct thereof.   The  Committee  does  not  suggest  the  same considering the magnitude of the requirements and the need to  ensure  smooth  education  of  the  successful  candidates during the current academic year.

2. A method to compensate the students with some marks considering the lost time for those who underwent the need to re long in more than once; loss of opportunity to get extended

9

time or to avail the same even after being found eligible.  This committee,  as  it  stands,  now,  has  no capacity  to  suggest  a compensatory  formula.   Either  it  has  to  be  expanded including a statistician of competence or  in the alternative, consider a formula or other compensatory solution suggested at the Bar, if any.   

3. When the list is redrawn after providing compensation as above, it has to be ensured that the rank of candidates in the existing list are not affected.  That is to say, in case one more candidates with the same mark acquires eligibility for the reason that another person with the same mark has got into the eligibility list as per the existing rank, (say 51),  such candidates may be added with Rank Nos. 51A, 51B, etc. and for accommodating the number of such additional entrants an equal number of supernumerary seats may be created on an ad hoc basis.  This will ensure that no heart burn is caused to candidates who have already ensured their berth in the rank list.

4. No  relief  is  suggested  on  the  ground  of  errors  in framing of questions or in the matter of fixing the answer key.

This is so because a Committee of four vice chancellors has already reviewed the questions and answers thread bare and found,  in  its  meeting  held  on  13.05.2018  that  inaccuracy exists only in the case of Qn. No. 83(393) and proceeded to cancel that Question and accordingly directed evaluation of the paper treating the total marks only as 199 instead of 200 as originally planned.  With regard to Qn.No.153 (463) which originally carried a wrong answer key, it was decided by that VC Committee to correct the answer key and to upload the corrected key in CLAT-2018 web site.  The result declared is in accordance with the above changes.  The controversy over inaccuracy of questions and key may end there.”

6. The audit  report  placed along with the Report  sets  out  all  relevant

details as to that how the candidates had navigated from one question to the

other and the exact Log in and Log out time.  The audit report also gives

10

details  about  actual  time  made  available  to  each  candidate  including

extension  of  time,  wherever  it  was  granted/availed.   According  to  the

Committee,  2276  candidates  had  single  log  in  session  right  from  the

commencement of the examination while 1899 candidates required multiple

log in sessions, the details of which are given in the extract hereinabove.

The Committee also touched upon the issue as to how the students could be

compensated.  The facts indicate that out of 54464 candidates who took the

examination at 250 centres, 4690 candidates had raised grievances within the

time stipulated by this Court.  The data relating to such 4690 candidates has

been catalogued by the Committee.

7. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for the

Petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, Additional Solicitor General for Union of

India, Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3 and all

other learned advocates who appeared for various Interveners and petitioners

in connected matters. Two questions arise for our consideration:

(a) Whether the entire test needs to be cancelled and a fresh

test is required to be ordered;

11

(b) If the entire test is not to be cancelled, what methodology

can be adopted to compensate the students who had lost time

and were put to prejudice.

8. The basic grievance raised by the candidates pertains to loss of time as

a result  of  deficiency on part of  the examination conducting body in not

ensuring adequate  facilities  and not  affording them single  log  in  session

without any interruption.   The idea so projected is pointing towards loss of

time and inconvenience and not suggesting that the purity of examination

process was in any way compromised so as to annul the entire process.  Any

outright  cancellation  would  visit  tremendous  inconvenience  and  hardship

upon rest of the candidates.  If the interest of those candidates who suffered

loss of time could otherwise be compensated,  there is no reason that the

entire admission test be cancelled or annulled.  We, therefore, invited learned

counsel to address the Court on what could be the possible solution to take

care of the interest of those 4690 candidates.  Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior

Advocate placed before us the following Chart in relation to four petitioners

by way of illustration.  

12

Sl..No. in

GRC Report

Roll No. Name of the Candidate

Total Exam

Duration in Seconds

Notional Time Loss in seconds

Time Availed in Seconds

Number of Qns Attempted

out of 200

Number of Qns.

Correctly answered

No. of Qns wrongly answered

Original Score out of

200

Answerin g

Efficiency

Additional Qns. the candidate would have

answered had there been no

time loss

Revised total

number of Qns.

answered

Revised total number of

Qns. Correctly answered

Revised number of Qns. Wrongly

answered

Revised score after applying the normalisa- tion formula

Difference in score after

applying the normalisation

formula

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (Vi)= (iv)-(v) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (Xi)= (vi)/ (vii)

(Xii)=(v)/ (xi) (XIII)= (vii) + (xii)

(XIV)=  (xiii)* (viii)/  (Vii)

(XV)=  (XIII)*(ix)/(vii)

(XVI) (XVII)

19 10022585 Animesh  Shukla

7200 553 6647 172 125 47 113.25 38.65 14.00 186.00 135.00 51.00 122.25 9.00

37 10053562 Saksham  Sehgal

7200 364 6836 118 59 59 44.25 57.93 6.00 124.00 62.00 62.00 46.50 2.25

46 10018796 Hansika  Pandey

7200 68 7132 159 62 97 37.75 44.86 2.00 161.00 63.00 98.00 38.50 0.75

57 10008630 Kartik Singh 7200 109 7091 150 119 31 111.25 47.27 2.00 152.00 121.00 31.00 113.25 2.00

13

9. In the Chart, all the details including time availed, time lost, number

of questions attempted, number of questions correctly answered, number of

questions wrongly answered and the answering efficiency of the candidates

are  tabulated.   For  instance,  Animesh  Shukla  had  lost  553  seconds  i.e.

roughly over nine minutes.  Out of 200 questions, he had correctly answered

125 questions while his answers in respect of 47 questions were found to be

wrong.  The score that he secured was 113.25.  Considering the number of

questions attempted, the answering efficiency was found to be 38.65 seconds

per question. The next columns give the notional figure as to how many

questions he would have answered if there was no time loss and how many

questions he would have rightly answered.  These notional figures give us

statistically correct and appropriate formula to compensate for the loss of

time.   The  figures  given  in  the  chart  against  this  candidate  show  that

applying the normalization formula, the candidate would be entitled to be

placed at a score of 122.25 as against 113.35.

10.  Since all the details regarding log in and log out times are available in

respect of each of those 4690 candidates, it is possible to arrive at revised

score  applying  such  normalization  formula  in  respect  of  said  4690

candidates.  We repeatedly asked the learned advocates for the petitioners

14

and  intervenors  whether  they  could  suggest  any  alternate  mechanism or

point out any infirmity or fault in normalization formula so placed by Mr. V.

Giri,  learned Senior Advocate  but no counsel could suggest any alternative

or point out any infirmity.  According to us, the normalization formula so

suggested,  in  the  circumstances,  would  be  the  best  possible  way  to

compensate and take care of the interest of those 4690 candidates.  At the

same time, it would also ensure that no prejudice is caused to rest of the

candidates.   The normalization formula proceeds on the basis of answering

efficiency or capacity of a candidate to answer questions in given time and

then applies his rate of success as a parameter.  Normally, a candidate would

first answer those questions, whose answers he is well aware of and leave

out rest to be answered in the end.  His success rate in the former part would

certainly be greater,  as compared to the latter.   Since he would be given

benefit at the same success rate, there would be no prejudice.  It is true that

repeated interruptions would cause mental stress and upset him.  But that

aspect  as a factor is  difficult  to be translated in a quantifiable parameter.

Given the circumstances, the normalization formula appears to be the correct

and  appropriate  methodology.  We,  therefore,  accept  the  formula  so

suggested and reject the contention of outright cancellation of the entire test.

15

11. Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that by 15th June,

2018 the entire exercise of adopting and applying the normalization formula

and  arriving  at  a  revised  score  in  respect  of  4690  candidates  could  be

undertaken and completed.  We record said submission and proceed on that

premise.  We  have  also  been  given  to  understand  that  the  first  round  of

counseling has already begun.   

12. Having  considered  the  entirety  of  the  matter,  we  give  following

directions:

A). The exercise of applying normalization formula as suggested by

Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate and revising the scores of 4690

candidates shall be completed by 15.06.2018. Respondent Nos.2 and 3

namely the National University of Advance Legal Studies, Kochi and

Core  Committee-Common  Law  Admission  Test  2018  through  its

Convenor  –Vice Chancellor,  National  University  of  Advance Legal

Studies, Kochi shall undertake the entire exercise and complete it by

15.06.2018.   

B). Upon completion of said exercise, the revised scores of 4690

candidates will be published by respondents 2 and 3 on the official

website on 16.06.2018.

16

C). Based on such revised scores the merit list will be rearranged in

terms of Para 3 of the suggestion given by the Committee.    In other

words,  the  revised  position  of  the  concerned  candidate  will  be

indicated by rank Nos.51A-51B as illustrated by the Committee.

D). The first round of counseling which began on 10.06.2018 shall

go on without any impediment and if any candidate is allocated a seat,

such allocation will not in any way stand adversely altered as a result

of revised position granted to any of the candidates from the body of

4690 candidates.   

E). If any candidate from the body of 4690 candidates is otherwise

entitled, that is to say even without the benefit of revised score, to be

allocated any seat,  it goes without saying that such allocation will not

in any way stand adversely affected.

F). In  the  second  round  of  counseling  the  rank/merit  list  so

prepared in terms of these directions shall be the governing list and

the  seats  in  second  and  subsequent  rounds  of  counseling  will  be

allocated  on the  basis  of  the  list  so  revised  in  pursuance  of  these

directions.

17

G). If  a candidate, as a result of  revised rank list being operative in

second and subsequent round of counseling wants to secure admission

in any other college of his or her choice going by his or her revised

ranking,   he/she  shall  be  allowed  to  do  so  without  incurring  any

disadvantage.  In such cases, the fees if deposited in the first college

shall be given due credit against the admission in the second college

which the candidate may opt for as a result of revised ranking.  

13. 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  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

18

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.  

14. Since  we  have  dealt  with  the  matter  and  passed  comprehensive

directions,  we request  the High Courts to dispose of  the pending matters

raising challenge in respect of CLAT 2018, in the light of our directions.

15. All  the  petitions  are  thus  disposed  of.   We  record  our  sincere

appreciation  for  the  efforts  put  in  by  the  members  of  the  Grievance

Redressal  Committee  and  for  the  assistance  rendered  by  all  the  learned

counsel.

  ...…..…………….J.                                                   (Uday Umesh Lalit)

...……….……….J     (Deepak Gupta)  

New Delhi June 13, 2018