The Supreme Court on Wednesday put on hold the Delhi High Court’s directive to the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to revise and republish the CLAT UG 2025 results after identifying errors in four questions.

A Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih issued the stay while hearing a plea filed by Siddhi Sandeep Landa, a candidate who secured an All India Rank (AIR) of 22 in the original results. Landa argued that the High Court’s ruling would unfairly impact candidates like her who had received "Question Paper Set A."

According to the plea, the High Court’s decision disproportionately benefits candidates who received Sets B, C, and D. For instance, candidates in these sets were awarded marks for a particular erroneous question regardless of whether they attempted it, whereas Set A candidates were denied similar consideration. This, the plea said, undermines the principle of a level playing field.

Taking note of the concerns, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment and issued notice to the Consortium of NLUs. The Bench also directed the Consortium to publicize the fact that this petition is pending before the apex court by putting it up on its website. The matter will next be heard on May 5.

Senior advocates KK Venugopal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Deepak Nargolkar, and advocate Shoumik Ghoshal appeared for the petitioner.

The Delhi High Court had earlier, on April 23, identified errors in four questions of the CLAT UG 2025 exam and ordered the Consortium to rectify the answer keys, revise the mark sheets, and publish the final list of selected candidates within four weeks.

The disputed questions included:

• Question 5: Incorrect option given in the key. Option (c) was correct; marks to be awarded accordingly.

• Question 77: Deemed out of syllabus and to be excluded. Negative marks for incorrect attempts to be restored.

• Question 115: Option (a) found incorrect; option (d) — “None of these” — was the correct answer. Full marks to be awarded to all who attempted the question.

• Question 116: Candidates from Sets B, C, and D were granted marks due to discrepancies in this question. Since Set A had no such error, it was left unchanged.

These directions were part of a larger batch of petitions that had been transferred to the Delhi High Court from multiple High Courts — including those in Madhya Pradesh and Bombay — following a Supreme Court order to avoid parallel proceedings.

The issue originated from a plea filed by a 17-year-old candidate, Aditya Singh, who highlighted discrepancies in the CLAT UG 2025 paper. A single-judge bench of the High Court had partly accepted his plea. However, both Singh and the Consortium later appealed this ruling before a Division Bench, with the Consortium arguing that the single judge overstepped by acting as an expert.

To streamline the legal proceedings, the Supreme Court allowed the Consortium’s request to transfer all related matters to a single forum, leading to the current developments.