Delhi HC directs NLU to avoid excessive fees, declare revised result

Petitioners argued that most exams charge ₹100-₹200 per question, while CLAT charges ₹1,000

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU) to avoid charging ‘excessive’ fees for raising objections to questions in future Common Law Admission Tests (CLAT).

 

The court also granted relief to postgraduate students who appeared for CLAT PG 2025 over alleged errors in the answer key and directed the Consortium to declare the revised results at the earliest.

 

A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a batch of petitions challenging the CLAT PG 2025 results, conducted on 1 December last year.

 

The petitioners in the case were Anam Khan, Nitika, and Ayush Agrawal.

 

They argued that while most national-level exams charge between ₹100 and ₹200 to challenge a question, the CLAT objection fee stood at ₹1,000 per question—an amount they described as excessive and arbitrary. 

 

While the court agreed that the fee was steep, it declined to quash the levy for this year’s exam, noting that such a move could create complications and unnecessary litigation.

 

“Quashing such levy at this point in time may entail obstacles which may be unnecessary and may result in litigations which are not required,” the court stated.

 

“However, we expect that the aforesaid observations would be sufficient for the Consortium to take heed of and take appropriate steps to avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations, scheduled for the following years,” the bench added.

 

CLAT UG 2025 revised result declared 

The order follows a separate legal battle regarding the undergraduate version of the exam.

 

In December 2024, a single judge found two questions in the CLAT UG 2025 paper to be erroneous and directed the Consortium to revise the result. That decision was later appealed before the High Court.

 

On 23 April, Chief Justice Upadhyaya ruled on the appeal, ordering revisions to the result.

 

However, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order on 7 May and directed the Consortium to issue a revised result, which was subsequently declared.