SC refuses to cancel CLAT 2020 or stay counselling process
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 9
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2020 or stay the counselling process for admission to five-year law courses in national law universities on the basis of the test held on September 28.
A Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, however, allowed a group of aspiring law students to make representations with regard to issues relating to CLAT 2020 before a grievance redressal committee headed by a retired CJI.
“In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in giving liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the Grievance Redressal Committee with regard to their grievance within three days from today. We order accordingly,” said the Bench which also included Justice MR Shah.
“We have no doubt that the petitioners’ representation be considered by the Committee at an early date,” it added.
Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, submitted that in the examination, there were technical problems, certain questions and key answers were not correct and the options given by the petitioners were not correctly recorded in the software.
On behalf of the consortium of national universities, senior advocate PS Narasimha contended that a decision had been taken in this regard in which three answers were modified and three questions were deleted.
“There is already a Grievance Redressal Committee where grievances can be placed. If the petitioners have any grievance, they may file a representation to the Grievance Redressal Committee,” Narasimha submitted.
He said that after declaration of the results on October 3, counselling had already started and a large number of candidates had completed their counselling.
Alleging technical glitches in CLAT 2020, a group of aspiring law students had on October 4 moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing the September 28 test. CLAT 2020 should be conducted afresh, they demanded, contending there were instances of answers mismatching which vitiated the exam.
