Divyanshu Shekhar, represented by Praveen Kumar Agrawal, has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Patna high court against _Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)_ 2017 convenor CNLU Patna, seeking a stay on the counselling process that allots national law school seats to candidates.

The high court registry accepted the PIL, civil writ 42571/2017 on Monday, with a first hearing date yet to be published.

The petition also seeks for all students to be allowed to re-sit the exam without re-applying, and in the case of any delay in conducting the re-exam the applicants should be given fee refund.

Shekhar said that the PIL was seeking to challenge the award of the bid to conduct CLAT 2017 to the organisation which CNLU Patna had chosen. Shekhar said that the bid was awarded wrongfully, however he declined to share the full petition for the time being.

Another petitioner, a GNLU student, had attempted to challenge CLAT 2017 in the Delhi high court but he withdrew his petition after it was returned several times for defects.

Click to show 2 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
Like +3 Object -0 K V S 08 Jun 17, 09:19
The fiasco in CLAST every year makes one suspect that all this is deliberate. Does it take so much effort to administer a question paper that has no ambiguity?

Deliberately introduce errors both in the paper and the answer key, ask candidates to appeal and then fudge the marks of about 50 candidates whom the CLAT system wishes to favour - mark up the marks of these 50 significantly and do an eyewash of a mark up for others (or, mark down, for some unfortunate souls). 50 get in with no questions asked. For, who knows what their initial scores were and what their new scroes are. CLAT never makes an announcment of the initial score of candidates anyway.
It's a scam.

This is just a reflection of how the judicial system in this country works - by being as opaque as possible instead of being transparent.
Reply Report to LI
Like +3 Object -0 K V S 08 Jun 17, 09:31
The repeated fiasco's in the setting of the CLAT question paper and the incorrect answer key makes one suspect that this is all deliberate. After all is it so difficult to come up with an exam paper and answer key that has no errors?

This makes it very easy to set up a system that helps candidates with influence, either political or with lots of cash. Ask candidates to appeal and fudge up the marks of those with this kind of influence after the appeal. It is so easy to do this for about 50 candidates, (and to cover it do this for some unsuspecting souls as well) without arousing suspicion. After all CLAT never makes a public announcement of the marks a candidate scored before and after the candidates appeal.

Indians seem to be masters at setting up systems that are as far from being transparent as possible. The murkier the better. CLAT is no exception.
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.