Petition Filed by ABVP in Delhi HC To Stay CLAT 2018 Results

LatestLaws.
com
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
AKHIL BHARTIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD & ORS
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO._____ OF 2018
(FOR DIRECTIONS)
THROUGH
NAMIT SAXENA / NISHANT AWANA
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
IN D E X
S. No Particulars Pages
1. NOTICE OF MOTION 1
2. URGENT APPLICATION 2
3. MEMO OF PARTIES 3-
4. SYNOPSIS, LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
5. A WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGHLIGHTING
WIDESPREAD DISCREPANCIES AND
MALPRACTICES IN CONDUCTION OF
COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST (CLAT)-
2018 AND INACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES
IN TAKING DECISION IN CONDUCTING
CLAT EFFICIENTLY EVERY YEAR AND
SEEKING AN ENQUIRY INTO AFFAIRS OF

LatestLaws.com
CLAT 2018 AND SEEKING RE
EXAMINATION OF CLAT 2018.
6. STATEMENT OF NON-FILING
7. ANNEXURE-P-1:
A true copy of the Notification of CLAT 2018
as released by Respondent No. 3 to 5
8. ANNEXURE P-2:
A true copy of the admit card of Petitioner No.
2 for CLAT PG 2018.
9. ANNEXURE P-3:
A true copy of the email dated 11.05.2018
received a night before the CLAT 2018
examination.
10. ANNEXURE P-4:
A true copy of the admit card of Petitioner No.
3 for CLAT UG 2018.
11. ANNEXURE P-5:
A true copy of the email dated 16.05.2018
sent by Petitioner No. 3 to Respondent No. 3
-5 on vc@nuals.ac.in.
12. ANNEXURE P-6:
A true copy of the weblink of Lawctopus.com
dated 13.05.2018 as downloaded on
17.05.2018.
13. ANNEXURE P-7:

LatestLaws.com
A true copy of the weblink of Livelaw.in as
downloaded on 17.05.2017.
14. ANNEXURE P-8:
A true copy of detailed set of various reported
managements conducted through online
survey.
15. C.M. No. _______ of 2018 :
An Application for Directions with Affidavit.
16. Vakalatnama
17. Court Fee
18. Proof of service
Note : All Respondents have been served either through their nominated
counsel and by email to the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NOTICE OF MOTION
To,
The Standing Counsel,
For the Union of India,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Take notice that the accompanying petition will be listed before the Court on
_________ at 10.30 a.m. in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as may be
convenient for the Hon’ble Court.
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Hon’ble Registrar,
Delhi High Court at New Delhi,
New Delhi.
Sir,
Kindly treat the present petition as urgent in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 9, Chapter 3A of the Rules and Orders of the High Court. The
reason why urgency arises in the present case is that the CLAT 2018 has been
conducted and marks have been pronounced. On 31.05.2018, the results will be
announced and the whole discrepancies in the conduction of CLAT 2018 shall
once again go unnoticed.
Hence, it is most respectfully requested that the present matter be listed urgently
before the Hon’ble Court.
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
LatestLaws.com
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
(EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. AkhilBhartiyaVidyarthiParishad
Through its General Secretary
Vivekananda Bhawan, B - 50,
Christian Colony, Near Patel Chest,
University Campus, DELHI-110 007
… Petitioner No. 1
2. Vibhav Chandra
…Petitioner No. 2
3. Mangesh Mani
…Petitioner No. 3
Versus
1. Union of India
Ministry of Law and Justice
Through Its Secretory,
4th floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,

LatestLaws.com
New Delhi – 110001.
…Respondent No. 1
2. Union of India
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
ShastriBhavan, New Delhi-11001
…Respondent No. 2
3. CLAT 2018- Working Committee
Through its Convenor, Prof. (Dr.) Rose Varghese
National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS),
Medical College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony, North Kalamassery,
Kalamassery, Kochi, Kerala 683503
…Respondent No. 3
4. CLAT 2018 - Implementation Committee
Through its Chairman, Prof. (Dr.) Rose Varghese
National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Medical
College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony, North Kalamassery, Kalamassery,
Kochi, Kerala 683503
…Respondent No. 4
5. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
Through its Vice Chancellor, Medical College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony,
North Kalamassery, Kalamassery, Kochi, Kerala 683503
…Respondent No. 5
6. Bar Council of India

LatestLaws.com
Through Secretary,
Office at 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New
Delhi 110002
…Respondent No. 6
PETITIONERS
THROUGH

Advocates for the Petitioners
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
SYNOPSIS
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being
filed by the Petitioners being aggrieved by the mismanagement and
incompetency of the National Law Universities (NLUs) in conducting CLAT
(Common Law Admission Test) on rotational basis. Successive and repeated
failures alongwith numerous technical glitches every year in conducting CLAT
have been reprimanded by various forums in the country in multiple litigations.
Petitioners have been moved by and in the manner in which CLAT 2018 has been
conducted by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and students are currently facing a threat
to their entire career due to failure of the part of the Respondent No. 3 to 5 in
conducting CLAT 2018.
The CLAT which has been conducted by the National University of
Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) this year has been the worst conducted
examination for entrance in National Law Schools till date. The multiple staged
failures in online administration of CLAT 2018 have created an atmosphere of
frustration among students and parents who were full of hope and confidence,
right before the examination. CLAT examination which requires the highest
degree of competence and intellect to reach out to one of the top law colleges in
India, itself is showing such a gross incompetence in its conduct over the years.
CLAT examinations have shown a depleting state in its conduct over the past
years as it is getting worse every year. Almost all CLAT examinations have
shown institutional lapses and unprofessionalism in its conduct. There has been
not a single CLAT examination till date,which has beenfree from some
procedural lapses. The conduct on the part of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has
demonstrated sheer incompetence and the lackadaisical attitude in conducting the
examination. This year’s CLAT (2018) examination has been worst of all the
CLAT examinations held till date. From glitches which started right from the
LatestLaws.com
application process till the stage when the students, as some places, were not
given or allowed the assigned time to complete their examination.
The Petitioner No. 2 & 3 herein are victims of such incompetence on the
part of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. One such example which would demonstrate
the incompetence and lackadaisical attitude of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 would
be that the students, including the Petitioner No. 2 & 3, were allotted a time period
of 2 hours to complete the examination, however, the examination paper was
made available to them with a delay of over 15 minutes (at some places delay
was within a range of 30 minutes to 50 minutes) and no grace time period of the
equivalent time was assigned to them so as to effectively complete their paper
Few glitches (which have now become a routine affair) which have been
observed in the past have been mentioned herein below:
a. In year 2009 itself, the paper got leaked.
b. Then, in year 2011, most of the answers to the questions were already
underlined.
c. Again in year 2012, the whole syllabus was deviated from the prescribed
format and there were also errors in the rank list.
d. With another surprising move in 2013, CLAT introduced a scheme of
negative marking system of 0.25 marks for each wrong answer. The
inefficiencies extended to such extent that in year 2014, the Gujarat National
Law University which organized the examination had withheld the results
after an hour of its release owing to technical discrepancies.
e. CLAT 2015 known to be the worst online conduct of CLAT had shown
incorrect answers, questions plagiarised from CAT papers and General
Knowledge questions were copied as it is from a well-known website.

LatestLaws.com
f. The examination became a mockery in year 2016 when doubts were raised
after the test paper carried questions in bulk from mock test papers of a few
coaching centres and preparation related websites.
g. The tragedy does not end here, because in year 2017 also, the question paper
was full of typographical errors and ambiguous questions
Now, the present situation of inefficiencies and egregious blunder in year
2018 is when the students are facing technical glitches, incompetent invigilator,
faulty systems, the discrepancy between the test time allotted to various
candidates and also infrastructural deficiencies.
The miseries and concerns of the students have been widely reported in
the national media. It has been reported that the instances of mismanagement
depict a host of technical breakdowns, including, but by no means limited to,
questions not appearing on the screen, unresponsive navigation buttons, the
allotted computer systems hanging/shutting down randomly and arbitrary
restarting during the test with an advanced timer.
That the Petitioner No. 2 is a meritorious student and a law graduate from
National Law University, Lucknow. He appeared for the CLAT-PG 2018 at
JIMS, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. At the center he was not allowed to enter the
examination hall at 1:40 p.m while the time for closing the gate was 2:00 p.m as
provided and instructed by CLAT on the admit card itself. His computer screen
showed no questions for few minutes at the commencement of the paper and he
was forced to restart the computer system again. Even then, the questions
appeared on the screen but the system was frozen and he could not scroll down
the questions neither could he jump to another question and the time kept running
while the system was frozen. He was given assurance by the invigilation staff
that he will get appropriate extra time for the loss of time he suffered but he was
LatestLaws.com
not given any time and the computer shut at the pre decided moment. While other
candidates got sufficient time to answer all questions, the petitioner No. 2 not
only got less time but also wasted a lot of time and energy in handling the glitches.
Even the syllabus was not defined but had an ‘etc’ and a lot of out of the course
questions were asked in CLAT PG.
That the Petitioner No. 3 is an outstanding student. He appeared for CLAT
UG 2018 on 13.05.2018 at SSR India Solutions, Jagat Complex, KH-No-354,100
Feet Road, Ghitorni, NewDelhi. His computer screen showed no questions for
the first 7 minutes after the commencement of the paper, the invigilator asked
him to login again assuring that time loss will be fixed during the paper itself,
which did not get fixed moreover in course of switching through sections the
question got skipped by a series of 2/3 questions in a single click which caused
further loss of time. Towards the last part of the examination when the timer
showed 4:54 minutes due the paper got auto submitted thereby leading to loss in
attempting few more questions.
Besides, the previous years' glitches and violations regarding the
prescribed time limit, the Petitioners faced some more serious issues as provided
hereunder:
Other Technical Issues:
1. Despite clicking once on the “Next Question” button as instructed,
Computer Systems of the Petitioners constantly hanged between
answering one question and the next, henceforth causing a delay of
about 20-30 seconds in answering one question.
2. Clicking on the “Next Question” took the Petitioners 3-4 questions
forward hence resulting in omission of some questions and added
loss of time.
LatestLaws.com
3. Owing to the technical errors and due no adequate response from
the Respondents, the Petitioners are still unsure whether their
examination has been fairly submitted or not.
Issues related to Management:
1. The queries raised by the Petitioners regarding the technical issues
were not resolved by the Respondents.
2. No specific seats were allotted to the Petitioners and the Petitioners
were made to sit on random computer systems which were deemed
to be working properly as per the Respondents.
3. The Practice Test was not conducted as per the aforementioned
instructions and guidelines.
4. Due to the noise and complaints regarding the working of the
computer systems, the Petitioners were unable to concentrate on
their examination in such clamorous environment.
The petitioners have collected a complete set of data as to how CLAT 2018
has been an utter failure. The petitioners feel duty bound to bring it to the judicial
notice of this Hon’ble Court that a large number of students are suffering due to
highest degree of mismanagement and instead of taking any action, the Vice
Chancellor of NUALS has gone on record stating that the examination was
98.30% error free and has published the marks without considering the large scale
and rampant unfairness which has put students at unequal levels.
These national universities are not experienced as to conduct a nation-
wide exam and hence, they should not conduct exams more than the university-
level. Moreover, the examination is conducted on a rotation basis, so there is no
standardisation in the question paper which leads to a tougher way to efficiently
manage the whole process. Therefore, it is necessary to have an autonomous body

LatestLaws.com
with requisite resources and required experience to conduct nation-wide
examination. Thereby, there would be uniformity in the manner in which the
exam will be held.
The petition seeks to challenge the way of rotational conduct of CLAT
examination and also seeks request to constitute an autonomous body to conduct
such prestigious examination. The petitioner seeks to challenge arbitrary and
unprofessional conduct of such national law universities, besides scrapping .
Hence this Writ Petition.

LatestLaws.com
LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
2006 A PIL was filed by Varun Bhagat against the Union of
India and various National Law Universities in
the Supreme Court of India.
23.11.2007 A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed
by the Vice Chancellors of the seven National Law
Universities to conduct a common admission test. The
Common Law Admission Test was to be conducted
each year by each of the law colleges and the
responsibility of conducting the exam was to be rotated
and given on the basis of seniority in establishment.
11.05.2008 The exam was conducted for the first time wherein a
total number of 1037 seats from seven law schools
were offered to be filled by the test.
17.05.2009 11 law schools were participating in CLAT that year
but the paper got leaked.
31.05.2009 The paper got rescheduled.
15.05.2011 Most of the answers to the questions were already
underlined due negligence on the part of the organizing
CLAT committee of that particular year.
12.05.2012 The whole syllabus was deviated from the prescribed
format and there were also errors in the rank list.
05.2013 CLAT introduced a scheme of negative marking
system of 0.25 marks for each wrong answer.
05.2014 The results had been withheld after an hour of its
release owing to technical discrepancies.

LatestLaws.com
05.2015 The questions were plagiarised from well know
websites.
05.2016 The test paper carried questions in bulk from mock test
papers of a few coaching centers and preparation
related websites.
05.2017 The question paper was full of typographical errors and
ambiguous questions.
Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are meritorious students.
Petitioner No. 2 is a law graduate from National Law
University, Lucknow. He appeared for the CLAT-PG
2018. Petitioner No. 3 appeared for CLAT-UG 2018.
Petitioners have undertaken extensive coaching for a
considerable amount of time for CLAT and had
devoted vital years of their lives to prepare for such
prestigious examination
13.05.2018 The Petitioner No. 2 applied for CLAT PG 2018 and
was allotted examination centre at JIMS, Vasant Kunj,
Delhi.
The Petitioner No. 3 applied for CLAT UG 2018 and
was allotted examination centre at SSR India
Solutions, Jagat Complex, KH-No-354,100 Feet Road,
Ghitorni, NewDelhi.
13.05.2018 Petitioner No. 2 appeared for the CLAT-PG 2018 at
JIMS, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. At the center he was not
allowed to enter the examination hall at 1:40 p.m while

LatestLaws.com
the time for closing the gate was 2:00 p.m as provided
and instructed by CLAT on the admit card itself.
His computer screen showed no questions for few
minutes at the commencement of the paper and he was
forced to restart the computer system again. Even then,
the questions appeared on the screen but the system
was frozen and he could not scroll down the questions
neither could he jump to another question and the time
kept running while the system was frozen. He was
given assurance by the invigilation staff that he will
get appropriate extra time for the loss of time he
suffered but he was not given any time and the
computer shut at the pre decided moment. While other
candidates got sufficient time to answer all questions,
the petitioner No. 2 not only got less time but also
wasted a lot of time and energy in handling the
glitches. Even the syllabus was not defined but had an
‘etc’ and a lot of out of the course questions were
asked in CLAT PG.
Petitioner No. 3 appeared for the CLAT-UG
2018.Petitioner No. 3 is an outstanding student. He
appeared for CLAT UG 2018 on 13.05.2018 at SSR
India Solutions, Jagat Complex, KH-No-354,100 Feet
Road, Ghitorni, NewDelhi. His computer screen
showed no questions for the first 7 minutes after the
commencement of the paper, the invigilator asked him

LatestLaws.com
to login again assuring that time loss will be fixed
during the paper itself, which did not get fixed
moreover in course of switching through sections the
question got skipped by a series of 2/3 questions in a
single click which caused further loss of time. Towards
the last part of the examination when the timer
showed 4:54 minutes due the paper got auto submitted
thereby leading to loss in attempting few more
questions.
13.05.2018 The Mishap of CLAT 2018 happened. Various news
reports came from across the State of Delhi and from
entire country regarding complaints of
mismanagement. FIRs have also been reportedly
lodged.
Petitioner No. 1 is a dedicated student organization and
it has been moved by and in the manner CLAT 2018
has been conducted and students are currently facing a
threat to their entire career due to failure of the Core
Committee as well as Implementation Committee in
conducting CLAT 2018.
05.2018 Hence, the present Writ Petition.

LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
A WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGHLIGHTING WIDESPREAD
DISCREPANCIES AND MALPRACTICES IN CONDUCTION OF
COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST (CLAT)-2018 AND INACTION OF THE
AUTHORITIES IN TAKING DECISION IN CONDUCTING CLAT
EFFICIENTLY EVERY YEAR AND SEEKING AN ENQUIRY INTO
AFFAIRS OF CLAT 2018 AND SEEKING RE EXAMINATION OF CLAT
2018
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF DELHI HIGH COURT AND HIS
COMPANIAN JUDGES;
HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONERS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
1. The present Writ Petition filed in public interest seeks immediate
intervention of this Hon’ble Court against the inconsistent, negligent, sub-

LatestLaws.com
standard and inefficient implementation of Common Law Admission Test
(hereinafter the ‘CLAT’) held by Respondents 3 to 5 on 13.05.2018, for
the purpose of admission to the Under Graduate (‘UG’) and Post-Graduate
(‘PG’) programs in the discipline of law offered at premier national law
schools of India.
2. That the Petitioner No. 1 isa student organisation engaged in the task of
National Reconstruction in the field education in a wider context of
National Reconstruction. This demands a constructive approach for the
growth of the nation in all spheres. ABVP emphasizes on an all-inclusive
and constructive approach. The petitioner No. 1 is dedicated to build an
ideal student movement which will work in the wider context of National
Reconstruction, in the field of education with a firm belief in constructive
activity, in the existence of educational community and in the need to stay
above partisan politics
3. That the Petitioner No. 1 is a dedicated student organization and it has
been moved by and in the manner CLAT 2018 has been conducted and the
way the aspiring law students of this country are currently facing a threat
to their dreams and career due to failure on the part of the Respondent Nos.
3 to 5 in conducting CLAT 2018 and inaction on the part of the other
Respondents in tackling with this menace.
4. The conduct of CLAT over the last several years has been continuously
riddled with arbitrariness, opacity and ineptitude, thereby affecting the
education and career prospects of thousands of students, who participate
in these exams every year, whose interest the Petitioner seeks to represent
in the present Public Interest Litigation.

LatestLaws.com
5. CLAT 2018 isbeing conducted by the Respondent No. 3 to 5. A true copy
of the brochure of CLAT 2018 as released by Respondent No. 3 to 5 is
hereby marked and annexed as Annexure – P/1 [Pages to ]
6. That the Petitioner No. 2 is a meritorious student and a law graduate from
National Law University, Lucknow. He appeared for the CLAT-PG 2018
at JIMS, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. The Petitioner No. 2 faced following
problem before and during the CLAT 2018 examination:
a. As per the admit card as well as the email received a night before the
examination, the gates for entry of the students were to close at 2:00
pm on 13.05.2018. However, when the Petitioner No. 2 reached and
attempted to enter the center at 1:40 pm, he was denied entry and
informed that the gates were to be closed at 1:30 pm and no entry can
be allowed thereafter. After must persistence and efforts, the Petitioner
No. 2 was allowed entry. This harassment, even before the examination
had started, caused severe tension and negatively affected the mental
state of the Petitioner No. 2.
b. As per the admit card, the examination was to start sharp at 3:00 pm
and the questions were to be made available at 3:00 pm. However, the
computer screen (of the allotted computer) showed no questions for
over 15 minutes at the commencement of the paper and he was forced
to restart the computer system again. Thereafter, when the questions
appeared,the computer system froze and the Petitioner No. 2 was
unable to scroll down the questions neither could he jump to another
question and the time kept running while the system was frozen.
He was given assurance by the invigilation staff that he will get
appropriate extra time for the loss of time which he suffered but he was
not given any time and the computer shut at the pre decided moment.
LatestLaws.com
While other candidates got sufficient time to answer all questions, the
petitioner No. 2 not only got less time but also wasted a lot of time and
energy in handling the glitches.
c. The syllabus was not defined but had an ‘etc’ and a lot of out of the
course questions were asked in CLAT PG.
A true copy of the admit card of Petitioner No. 2 for CLAT PG 2018
is hereby marked and annexed Annexure-P/2 [Pages ___ to ____ ]
A true copy of the email dated 11.05.2018 received a night before the
CLAT 2018 examination is hereby marked and annexed as Annexure-
P/3 [Pages ___ to ____]
7. That the Petitioner No. 3 is an outstanding student. He appeared for
CLAT UG 2018 on 13.05.2018 at SSR India Solutions, Jagat Complex,
KH-No-354,100 Feet Road, Ghitorni, New Delhi. His computer screen
showed no questions for the first 7 minutes after the commencement of
the paper, the invigilator asked him to login again assuring that time loss
will be fixed during the paper itself, which did not get fixed moreover in
course of switching through sections the question got skipped by a series
of 2/3 questions in a single click which caused further loss of time.
Towards the last part of the examination when the timer
showed 4:54 minutes due the paper got auto submitted thereby leading
to loss in attempting few more questions.
A true copy of the admit card of Petitioner No. 3 for CLAT UG 2018 is
hereby marked and annexed Annexure-P/4 [Pages __ to ___ ]

LatestLaws.com
A true copy of the email dated 16.05.2018 sent by Petitioner No. 3 to
Respondent No. 3 -5 on vc@nuals.ac.inis hereby marked and annexed
Annexure-P/5 [Pages ___ to ___ ].
8. The Respondents herein are ‘state’ for the purposes of Article 12 of the
Constitution and public authorities against whom a Petition under Article
226 is maintainable. The details of the Respondents are as follows:
a. Respondent No. 1, is the Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice,
through its Secretary.
b. Respondent No. 2 is the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, through its Secretary.
c. Respondent No. 3 is the CLAT 2018- Working Committee through its
Convenor Prof. (Dr.) Rose Varghese
National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi..
d. Respondent No.4 is the CLAT 2018 Implementation Committee,
through its Convenor,Prof. (Dr.) Rose Varghese
National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi
through.
e. Respondent No.5 is the National University of Advanced Legal
Studies (NUALS), Kochi through its Vice-Chancellor.
f. Respondent No.6 is the Bar Council of India, a statutory body
established under the Advocate Act, 1961, through its Secretary.
BACKGROUND
9. That the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed before this Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by the way of
Public Interest Litigation against the organisation and mismanagement of
Common law admission test (CLAT – 2018) and violating the

LatestLaws.com
fundamental right to fair examination, of the law aspirants/students in the
country, including that of the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3.
10. The Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred as “the CLAT”),
is an all India common entrance examination through which student’s
secure admission in five-year law courses in various national law
universities in the country and the big Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs)
such as ONGC Limited, Power Grid Corporation of Indi Limited, Oil India
Limited, etc. use the scores obtained in this examination to recruit its law
officers.
11. It is conducted to provide list of candidates on the basis of ‘merit-cum-
preference’ to each university for admission to their respective
undergraduate/post-graduate courses/recruitment in various PSUs.
Currently, there are nineteen national law universities taking part in the
conducting of the CLAT. The examination is conducted on a rotational
basis by the participating universities unlike other prestigious entrances
examination which are either conducted under the supervision of Ministry
of Human Resource Development (such as GATE) or by Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) (such as NEET, JEE, etc.)
12. In year 2018, the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi,
Keralahas been entrusted with the responsibility to organise the CLAT
2018, which it has failed miserably.
13. CLAT examination has always been a subject of controversies where the
interests of the participating students have been affected severely. The
CLAT examination has undergone numerous changes in relation to the
subject-matter, time, mode of the examination, and/or such other changes.
Earlier, CLAT was conducted in the conventional manner where students
had to mark answers in paper-sheets but since year 2014, the examination
LatestLaws.com
has been conducted online. The common element among all is the
mismanagement of the examination.
14. CLAT 2018 was conducted on 13.05.2018 and was conducted online on
computers installed at all the centres. More than sixty-thousand candidates
took part in the said examination. The candidates faced multiple technical
glitches at various test centres including but not limited to disruption in
the examination and wrong seating arrangements, unfair time
management, and obstruction while entering the centres.
15. The candidates have reported glitches such as encrypted questions or non-
visible answers options. The candidates raised the issue through many
platforms and grievances were about non-professional staff, inexperienced
invigilators, miscommunication about entry time, power cuts leading to
disruption of test, and improper seating arrangements.
16. The blog post by ‘Lawoctopus’, a major website related to the five year
law, reported the list of mismanagement issues which were confirmed by
several candidates of CLAT 2018 examination. These issues included:
a. Glitches in the computer systems and freezing of the systems;
b. Commotions in the exam centres resulting from misdemeanor of the
invigilators;
c. Unacknowledged queries of the candidates;
d. Poor infrastructure of the exam centres;
e. Glitches in the online exam;
f. Glitches in the time limit for the examination;
g. Malfunctioning of the biometric verification system done before the
examination and thus leading to unnecessary delays;
h. Improper dissemination of information regarding exam centres;
i. Power cuts; and

LatestLaws.com
j. Improper seat management in the exam centres;
The above-mentioned issued are non-exhaustive and there are various
other issues that display the serious malfunctioning of the organization of
CLAT. A true copy of the weblink of Lawctopus.com dated 13.05.2018 as
downloaded on 17.05.2018 is hereby marked and annexed Annexure-P/6
[Pages __ to ___ ]
17. A writ petition was filed in Rajasthan High Court by two candidates in
CW 10818/2018 against the CLAT 2018 organizer NUALS, technical
partner Sify Technologies, test centre Radhakrishnan institute of
technology, and NLU Jodhpur, alleging the misconduct of invigilators at
the test centre and denial of extra time to which the candidates were
entitled to owing to the technical glitches.
18. As per the report some test centres extended the timing of exam for almost
2 hours and students had to attempt the exam twice or thrice due to
technical glitches. A student who appeared for the exam at a center in
Mulund, Mumbai recalled how he lost almost 10 minutes due to such
technical glitches. Not only did he find the new interface to not be user-
friendly, he was also certain that this was the most mismanaged law
entrance exam out of all those he had taken this year. A true copy of the
weblink of Livelaw.in as downloaded on 17.05.2017 is hereby marked and
annexed Annexure-P/7 [Pages ___ to ___ ]
19. The exact nature of technical glitches varies from different examination
centres, the abysmal failure of the IT Vendor tasked with the
implementation of technical aspects of the examination is both enraging
and alarming. The frustration and confusion of candidates taking test was,
however, further aggravated due to the lack of any timely technical

LatestLaws.com
assistance and blatant non-cooperation from the invigilator staff at such
examination centres. In furtherance, many of the examination centre
lacked basic infrastructure facilities such as drinking water, a cooling
system or uninterrupted electricity supply. There were also complaints that
extra time was allotted arbitrarily to students depends upon the situation
faced by the examination centre. A true copy of detailed set of various
reported managements conducted through online survey is hereby marked
and annexed Annexure-P/8 [Pages ___ to ____ ]
20. It is pertinent to address that similar form of mismanagement has been a
part of CLAT examination in previous years too.
a. In 2009, the CLAT examination had to be rescheduled because of the
leaking of the question paper.
b. In 2011, the question booklets had underlined options which were also
the answers.
c. In 2012, the CLAT examination was surrounded by controversies as it
deviated majorly from the prescribed official format. The publication
of merit-list was also flawed and contained numerous errors, leading
to its withdrawal and republication.
d. The inefficiencies extended to such extent that in year 2014, the
Gujarat National Law University which organized the examination had
withheld the results after an hour of its release owing to technical
discrepancies.
e. In 2015, the examination contained more that forty erroneous
questions, which were not even acknowledged by the organizing
university. CLAT 2015 known to be the worst online conduct of CLAT
had shown incorrect answers, questions plagiarised from CAT papers
and General Knowledge questions were copied as it is from a well-

LatestLaws.com
known website. Such history of grave mismanagement unveils the
mockery of interests of the thousands of students.
f. The examination became a mockery in year 2016 when doubts were
raised after the test paper carried questions in bulk from mock test
papers of a few coaching centres and preparation related websites.
g. The tragedy does not end here, because in year 2017 also, the question
paper was full of typographical errors and ambiguous questions.
21. Owing to a significant number of student complaints, the CLAT
Implementation Committee (IC) formed an “expert” committee to review
the questions and answer keys. The first expert committee admitted to only
three errors in the UG paper, awarding two marks to all candidates for
typographical errors in Questions Numbers 35 and 182, and declaring two
correct options for Question Number 186. Surprisingly however, a second
expert committee that was constituted later found that there were no errors
at all in the paper. A review of some of these questions will highlight the
sheer travesty of justice in having an expert committee defend an
otherwise indefensible paper, which has harmed the futures of thousands
of students.
22. In the 2012 CLAT paper set by NLU Jodhpur, as many as 7 questions were
reportedly incorrect. On the representation of a student petitioner, this
Hon’ble High Court in its judgment in the case of Archit Krishna vs
National Law University and Anr., W.P. (C) 4147/2012, declared an
answer as incorrect, and decided that the Petitioner deserved one mark
higher than the score he had been given on the test by National Law
University Jodhpur, which was the CLAT Organizing University for that
year.
LatestLaws.com
23. In the 2014 CLAT paper set by GNLU, Gandhinagarthe Model Answer
Key released by the University contained several incorrect answers,
leading to severe student agitation. Subsequently, the University admitted
that the answers to three questions (Nos. 12, 76 and 145) were wrong. It
also admitted that two questions (Nos. 41 and 131) had more than one
correct answer. It therefore awarded marks to all candidates who had opted
for either of the correct options.
24. From the past many years, due to the irresponsible behaviour of the
universities who negate the hard work being put down by thousands of
aspirants, which leads to dreams being tarnished by the mere
inconsistencies and repeated mismanagement.
25. In 2015, Prof. Shamnad Basheer, a legal scholar of repute has filed the
public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the immediate intervention of the
Court against the opaque and inefficient implementation of the Common
Law Admission Test (‘CLAT’) held every year. He recommended that a
permanent, autonomous body shall be made who will regulate the CLAT
Exam.
26. It was also surposingly noticed that at few centres, it was reported that the
faculties of CLAT Coaching Centres such as Career Launcher (eg, at
Kanpur) were present as Invigilators who were guiding students all
through out the examination.
27. From the afore stated facts, the incompetence, unfair and prejudicial
practice on the part of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in conducting the
examination is apparent. This unfair and prejudicial act on the part of the
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and inaction on the part of the other Respondents
in supervising the conduction of CLAT examination, has violated the

LatestLaws.com
fundamental rights of the students across the country including the
Petitioner No. 2 & 3.
28. It’s high time now when an independent body should be constituted and/or
directed to conduct the prestigious examination (CLAT), just like other
prestigious examinations, such as GATE, NEET, JEE, etc. are conducted
by CBSE or under the supervision of the Ministry of Human Resource
Development.
29. That the petition is made bonafide and in the interest of justice.
30. That an emergent situation has arisen in conduction of CLAT 2018 and
the petitioners request this Hon’ble Court to quash the entire examination
conducted by CLAT Core Committee 2018 and order a fresh examination
after thorough probe and / or direct an independent body to conduct the
CLAT 2018, because the creditability of the NLUs conducting CLAT on
rotational bodies, has come under serious doubt
GROUNDS
The present Writ Petition is being filed on the following grounds and without
prejudice to one another:
A. Because the impugned action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary,
illegal and in blatant violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
B. Because the Petitioners have duly submitted the prescribed examination
fee and are legally entitled to get equal opportunity to give the CLAT –
2018 examination in a just and fair manner among other candidates.
C. Because the Petitioners were denied the prescribed time of 2 hours and
was made to stand on a lower footing by denial of 12 minutes of his

LatestLaws.com
elapsed time and providing some other students with upto 40 minutes of
extra time i.e. making a total of two and a half hours against the prescribed
time limit of 2 hours, in an unjust and arbitrary manner.
D. BECAUSE The acts of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and inaction on the part
of the other Respondents, have violated the fundamental right to fair
examination (which of such high repute) of the Students across the country
including that of the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3.
E. BECAUSE CLAT examination is not fair as it consists of various
institutional lapses and incompetent online mechanism of conducting
examination.
F. BECAUSE by virtue of being opaque, ad-hoc, arbitrary, inconsistent,
open to abuse and plagued by plagiarism and inaccuracies, the CLAT
examinations breach the rights of students under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution.
G. BECAUSE the a Petitioners were denied a decent examination
environment due to which much of their time and attention were diverted
to the serious issues relating to loss of their precious time and clamorous
environment owing to the grave mismanagement by the Respondents.
H. BECAUSE the Petitioners were denied any assistance and no heed was
paid to the inconvenience caused to the Petitioners by the Respondents.
I. BECAUSE the present practice of paper-setting is arbitrary and irrational,
inasmuch as there is a huge inconsistency in the standards and quality of
questions papers set each year, and therefore violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution
J. BECAUSE the examination is not free from ambiguousness of correct
answer to the questions.

LatestLaws.com
K. BECAUSE there is no single competent authority to look into the setting
of question paper and conducting examination.
L. BECAUSE the students pay high amount of Rs 4000/- as registration form
and get such disappointment.
M. BECAUSE the student spends such considerable time for the preparation
of CLAT and such technical and institutional failures leave them
unprepared.
N. BECAUSE the two hours examination and its result is decisive for future
of many students.
O. BECAUSE the rotation policy by NLUs for the purpose of conducting
CLAT has resulted in gross inefficiencies and woeful incompetence in that
each law school has to prepare for and conduct the CLAT exam from
scratch, resulting often in numerous mistakes and mishap.
P. BECAUSE the students take a year drop expecting next year CLAT
examination to be better in its conduct but much to their surprise, it only
gets worse.
Q. BECAUSE the students are being judged on the judged on the basis of the
result of these examinations which has now become a matter of luck and
not hard work.
R. BECAUSE there is no structured body or committee for redressal of such
issues.
S. BECAUSE the systems that are crashing, hanging and not working during
the examination has resulted in failure of
T. BECAUSE a mere difference of 0.25 makes a huge impact on student’s
life to go to private law college, take a year drop or simply let go law.
LatestLaws.com
U. BECAUSE the corrupt hardwares in the computer, dysfunctional mouse
and computer screens, bad infrastructural deficiencies such as no proper
ventilation or ac in the examination hall.
V. BECAUSE the CLAT is being conducted by different National Law
Universities on a rational basis and thus there is no uniform way of
conduct resulting in incompetent administration.
W. BECAUSE CLAT to have an independent body for the conducting law
examinations in order to bring transparency and accountability.
X. BECAUSE many students are opting law as a career option, and ill
conducted examinations will all their time, money and efforts into vain.
Y . BECAUSE there was biasness while allotting extra time to different
students in various centres
PRAYERS
In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble Court under the inherent powers under Article 226 may be
pleased to: -
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing a
thorough enquiry into affairs of CLAT 2018; and/or
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Union
of India through Ministry of Law and Justice or through Ministry of
Human Resource Developmentor any other autonomous organization like
UPSC or SSC or BCI or CBSE to takeover the conduction of CLAT
examination in light of successive failure on the partof various National
Law Universities in conducting CLAT efficiently; and/or

LatestLaws.com
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the
CLAT 2018 and thereby directing an independent body to conduct the
CLAT 2018 a fresh; and/or
d) Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
to the Respondents to immediately grant stay on results of CLAT 2018;
and/or
e) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon’ble court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
PETITIONERS
THROUGH

Office: H-11, Lajpat Nagar-3
New Delhi-110024.
Mobile No. : 8527189238 / 7838760760
Email: office@namitsaxena.in / nishantawana@outlook.com
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
AN APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
Companion Justices of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
The humble Petition of the
Petitioner above-named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
being filed by the petitioners , a writ petition in public interest under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India highlighting widespread
discrepancies and malpractices in conduction of common law admission
test (CLAT)-2018 and inaction of the authorities in taking decision in

LatestLaws.com
conducting CLAT efficiently every year and seeking an enquiry into
affairs of CLAT2018 and seeking re examination of CLAT 2018
2. The facts and circumstances for filing the present Writ Petition has been
detailed in the accompanying petition and for the sake of brevity and
convenience the petitioners herein craves to rely on the same for the
purpose of this application.
3. That there is a lot of mismanagement in the conducting CLAT everywhere
and CLAT 2018 has taken it to another level of mass mismanagement.
4. That in the interest of Justice this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay
the further declaration of results.
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to :
a) Stay all the further proceedings in CLAT 2018 including
declaration of result.; and
b) Stay and restrain the Respondent No. 3 to 5 in tampering with any
evidence of reported or unreported mismanagement in the State of
Delhi and country wide; and
c) Pass such further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
PETITIONERS
THROUGH

LatestLaws.com

New Delhi-110024.
Mobile No. : 8527189238 / 7838760760
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
PROOF OF SERVICE
1. Union of India
Ministry of Law and Justice
Through Its Secretory,
4th floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001.
…Respondent No. 1
2. Union of India
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
ShastriBhavan, New Delhi-11001
…Respondent No. 2
3. CLAT 2018- Working Committee
Through its Convenor, Prof. (Dr.) Rose Varghese
National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS),
Medical College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony, North Kalamassery,
Kalamassery, Kochi, Kerala 683503

LatestLaws.com
…Respondent No. 3
4. CLAT 2018 - Implementation Committee
Through its Chairman, Prof. (Dr.) Rose Varghese
National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Medical
College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony, North Kalamassery, Kalamassery,
Kochi, Kerala 683503
…Respondent No. 4
5. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
Through its Vice Chancellor, Medical College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony,
North Kalamassery, Kalamassery, Kochi, Kerala 683503
…Respondent No. 5
6. Bar Council of India
Through Secretary,
Office at 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New
Delhi 110002
…Respondent No. 6
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rahul Chaudhary, aged about 25 years, S/o Sh. Bhim Sen Chaudhary, R/o 26,
DeenDayalUpadhyaya Marg, New Delhi, Posted as Member, Central Working
Committee, AkhilBhartiyaVidyarthiParishad (ABVP) presently at New Delhi do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the Petitioner no. 1 in the present case and as such well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and hence
am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted by the counsel under my
instructions and its contents are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
3. That the contents of the List of Dates are drafted by my counsel which are
true to the best of my knowledge derived from the records maintained by
me.
4. That the contents of Para 1 to __ and A to ___ along with the prayer clause
of the Writ petition are drafted by my counsel and based on Legal Advice
received from the counsel of the petitioner which the petitioner believes
to be true.
LatestLaws.com
5. I say that the Annexures to the Writ Petition are true copies of their
respective originals.
6. The petitioner has not preferred any similar or other petition in the
abovementioned matter.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ………….., 2018 that the contents of the foregoing
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Vibhav Chandra, aged about 27 years, S/o Sh. Prem Chandra, R/o Flat No. 406,
Sunbreeze Apartment, Tower – III, Sector – 4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the Petitioner no. 2 in the present case and as such well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and hence
am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted by the counsel under my
instructions and its contents are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
3. That the contents of the List of Dates are drafted by my counsel which are
true to the best of my knowledge derived from the records maintained by
me.
4. That the contents of Para 1 to __ and A to ___ along with the prayer clause
of the Writ petition are drafted by my counsel and based on Legal Advice
received from the counsel of the petitioner which the petitioner believes
to be true.
5. I say that the Annexures to the Writ Petition are true copies of their
respective originals.
LatestLaws.com
6. The petitioner has not preferred any similar or other petition in the
abovementioned matter.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ………….., 2018 that the contents of the foregoing
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
AKHIL BHARTIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD & ORS…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
COURT FEES
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI

LatestLaws.com
IN THE MATTER OF
AKHIL BHARTIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD & ORS…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATEMENT OF NON-FILING
This is to certify and state that the Petitioners have not filed any similar petition
seeking similar reliefs before this Hon’ble Court or any other courts of the India,
including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on similar grounds
PETITIONERS
THROUGH

New Delhi-110024.
Mobile No. : 8527189238 / 7838760760
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI

Petition Filed by ABVP in Delhi HC To Stay CLAT 2018 Results

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition Filed by ABVP in Delhi HC To Stay CLAT 2018 Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LatestLaws.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

AKHIL BHARTIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD & ORS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO._____ OF 2018

NAMIT SAXENA / NISHANT AWANA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

AKHIL BHARTIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD & ORS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

4. SYNOPSIS, LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

5. A WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGHLIGHTING

WIDESPREAD DISCREPANCIES AND

COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST (CLAT)-

2018 AND INACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES

IN TAKING DECISION IN CONDUCTING

CLAT EFFICIENTLY EVERY YEAR AND

SEEKING AN ENQUIRY INTO AFFAIRS OF

CLAT 2018 AND SEEKING RE

EXAMINATION OF CLAT 2018.

A true copy of the Notification of CLAT 2018

as released by Respondent No. 3 to 5

A true copy of the admit card of Petitioner No.

2 for CLAT PG 2018.

A true copy of the email dated 11.05.2018

received a night before the CLAT 2018

10. ANNEXURE P-4:

A true copy of the admit card of Petitioner No.

3 for CLAT UG 2018.

11. ANNEXURE P-5:

A true copy of the email dated 16.05.2018

sent by Petitioner No. 3 to Respondent No. 3

12. ANNEXURE P-6:

A true copy of the weblink of Lawctopus.com

dated 13.05.2018 as downloaded on

13. ANNEXURE P-7:

A true copy of the weblink of Livelaw.in as

14. ANNEXURE P-8:

A true copy of detailed set of various reported

managements conducted through online

15. C.M. No. _______ of 2018 :

An Application for Directions with Affidavit.

17. Court Fee

18. Proof of service

counsel and by email to the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties

NAMIT SAXENA / NISHANT AWANA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

AKHIL BHARTIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD & ORS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

The Standing Counsel,

For the Union of India,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi

_________ at 10.30 a.m. in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as may be

convenient for the Hon’ble Court.

NAMIT SAXENA / NISHANT AWANA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI