The Supreme Court petition by several Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) aspirants challenging the exam over technical issues and results, is listed to be heard on Friday (9 October), according to the court’s cause list.
In a virtual repeat of the the successful Supreme Court challenge against the abortive National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) only a few weeks ago, the virtual hearing will take place in court number 4, before justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah.
As a refresher, that bench struck had down the NLAT, with a 100+ page judgment and after two days of hearing, while also ordering the CLAT Consortium to conduct the CLAT and “ensure that the entire process of declaration of the result be completed as early as possible to enable” NLSIU Bengaluru and other national law universities (NLUs) to “start their course by the mid of October-2020”.
In other words, the CLAT consortium might find itself in a bit of an awkward situation before their Lordships.
Also reprising his role is senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who had also appeared for petitioners in the NLAT.
We understand that Sankaranarayanan has now been instructed by advocate Ankita Chaudhary in the upcoming CLAT case. He declined to comment when contacted.
Appearing for the CLAT Consortium is senior counsel K Parameshwar (we believe he is one of the few faces who was not also in the NLAT matter).
Of course, in the NLAT petition, CLAT and the petitioners were effectively jointly arguing against NLSIU Bangalore. On Friday, they will be advancing their case on opposing sides.
Whatever else goes down, the schedule will be tight as the counselling process started early this morning and NLUs have been scheduling to have completed admissions by 14 October.
There are also several unanswered questions that would be valuable for the Consortium to address in court.
Our analysis published earlier today, for instance, showed that around 4,500 candidates scored less than 10 out of 147 points on the exam, while 40,000 scored below 30% of totals possible.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I wouldn't be howling like an idiot here if I hadn't appeared for it.
National Level Admission Tests and the Recruitment Tests such as JEE Mains, JEE
Advanced, NEET (PG), GATE, Banking Services Examinations e.t.c. If we see the normal practice as being followed for larger exams like IIT-JEE and NEET being conducted by NTA for many years the option " Answered and Marked for Review" is evaluated, their instructions is very clear in this regard www.nta.ac.in/Quiz . Hence in the same country how we can practice two norms. Here the question is not the option "Marked for Review" rather it is " Answered and Marked for Review" which is evaluated in all big sized exams. Suppose even if they claim that had given in their instructions, but in their first three mocks these instructions were not there, even if they had given in their last mocks, the students would not have paid due attention basically due to two reasons, first the things got diluted in the aftermath of NLAT, secondly very important that, Consortium had repeated same questions as earlier in their las mocks and as there was nothing new in it, Students would have taken it casually, One more valid point here is that there was no marks awarded for these mocks by Consortium , even if some of them practiced they would not have come to know its impact on their marks. Moreover reading instructions at centre is also not a valid point, keeping in view the scaring environment at the centers whereby kids were supposed to follow social distancing and this resulted in their reaching their seat late. In many cases the reporting time itself was mentioned as 1.45 PM, The other fiasco was removal of calculator during last few days, If this was not required, this should not have been introduced at first instance itself. So if not rectified these errors shall adversely impact the career of the kids,
Moreover, I doubt if there is any legal requirement that two different set of norms can't exist in separate exams.
Finally, anecdotal claims that X was going to score 129 but ended up with 3 are at best going to get you an 'expert committee' to oversee the grievances.
The paper had so many errors
Some questions were wrong but were not taken downxeven after objection
Answers mismatch
It's almost suspicious
People calling Gopal Sankaranarayan GShanks reminds me of that time.
Is GSanks doing these cases pro bono?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first