1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.551 OF 2018

Disha Panchal and Others ….Petitioners

Versus

Union of India The Secretary and Others …. Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.554 OF 2018

Rishi Dutt ….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Others …. Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.621 OF 2018

2

Yash Singhania ….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Others …. Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.600 OF 2018

Akshat Aggarwal & Ors. ….Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and Others …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1.These petitions highlight improper conduct of Common Law

Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is a single

window online entrance test for admission to 19 prestigious National Law

Universities in the country. The petitioners had appeared for said CLAT and

had faced various difficulties, which according to them, were occasioned as

a result of mismanagement by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Some of the

3

difficulties that were experienced by the petitioners and other candidates

were:

A. Questions of the examination did not appear on the screen at the

start, and were intermittently disappearing and re-appearing.

B. The options to move to the next question, etc. stopped working

intermittently.

C. Blank screens or frozen screens and software crashes.

D. Invigilators were incompetent and unhelpful – in being unable to

help resolve glitches and in terms of their rudeness, when apprised of

the existence of glitches.

E. Computers were dysfunctional and rebooting them did not help.

Resultantly, the effective time available to the candidates was far

lesser than the allotted time, which in turn caused great prejudice to the

candidates.

2.In addition to the petitions filed in this Court, some candidates also

approached various High Courts, where the petitions are still pending. By

order dated 24.05.2018 this Court had said, “as the entire issue in reference to

CLAT Examination – 2018 is the subject matter in the present proceedings, it is

4

appropriate that no High Court shall proceed with the hearing of pending

proceedings on the subject matter till further orders.”

3.On 25.05.2018 following order was passed by this Court:

“In deference to the observations made by the Court during the

course of hearing yesterday, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have

graciously agreed to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee

consisting of a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court, Mr. Justice

M.R. Hariharan Nair, Dr. Santhosh Kumar G., Professor and Head,

Department of Computer Science, Cochin University of Science

and Technology. The Committee will be chaired by Mr. Justice

M.R. Hariharan Nair who will examine every singular

representation/complaint received online till now and any further

representation/complaint received till 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27

th

May,

2018 and after due analysis, appropriate decision on case to case

basis will be taken by the Committee.

In the first phase, the representations/complaints already received

and of all the writ petitioners before this Court as well as different

High Courts may be scrutinized and appropriate report/

recommendation/ decision thereon be recorded by the appropriate

authority before 29

th

May, 2018 to be produced before the Court on

30

th

May, 2018.

In the second phase, new/fresh representation/complaints received

online upto 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27

th

May, 2018 be taken up for

consideration and, if possible, the scrutiny thereof be completed on

the same lines as indicated above up to 29th May, 2018 and status

report in that behalf be filed before the Court on 30

th

May, 2018.

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that as soon

as fresh/new representations/complaints are received online, attempt

will be made to acknowledge the same contemporaneously as far as

possible.

We appreciate the fair stand taken by learned counsel for

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to offer dispensation of this nature within

such a short time.

5

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that a

dedicated email account will be created for this purpose of which

publicity will be given on the official website of CLAT and will be

notified on the official website very shortly within two hours from

now.

We make it clear that this order will also enure to the benefit of the

writ petitioners who have filed writ petition in different High

Courts.

Interim stay regarding proceedings pending before different High

Courts will continue to operate till the next date of hearing.

List the matters on 30th May, 2018.”

4.The Grievance Redressal Committee so constituted, has since then

filed a comprehensive report enclosing certain annexures. Copies of the

report as well as annexures were directed to be given to the learned counsel

appearing for the parties to enable them to assist this Court. Paragraphs 4,

12 and 14 of the Report are as under:-

“4. The number of candidate writ petitioners as on 30-05-2018:

25 (Sl. Nos. 1-25 of Annexure – I of the first Report dated 29-05-

2018)

Number of complaints received up to the hearing of the case; i.e.,

11.30 hrs on 25-05-2018 - 2676

Number of complaints received between 11.30 am and 7 p.m. on 25-

05-2018 - 115

Number of complaints received in the new e- mail id between 5.50

p.m. on 25-05-18 to 7.00 p.m. on 27-05-2018 - 5677.

6

12.The team of service providers representing the Sify provided

the Committee with display of the Audit Report and all Supporting

data available at the central server of the company. The names of

these officers are in Annexure -II (already submitted along with the

Report dated 29-05-2018). In certain cases the Committee felt that

the explanation of the Service Provider regarding alleged lapses was

essential. The details so obtained are in Annexure -III (already

submitted along with the Report dated 29-05-2018).

14.On a perusal of the various complaints raised by the

candidates, the Committee felt that they broadly fall under one or

more of the following categories:

1.Frequent login failures.

2.Change of machines / mouse and disruptions.

3.Questions not visible in full or in part.

4.Registered answers disappeared.

5.Heat and unfavourable environment.

6.Commotion and distraction.

7.Time extension not effective as there was no re log in.

8.Undue time extension was given to some.

9.Deliberate cheating by closure of browser.

10. Power failure and absence of UPS needing multiple log ins

and distraction of concentration.

11. Pre-examination preparation sessions were ineffective; very

often machines had to be changed and distracted.

12.Invigilators unhelpful.”

5.The matter was dealt with by the Committee in the light of the audit

report and the data made available relating to 4690 candidates. The

7

Committee then considered the matter under the heading “Details of

appraisal” and made certain suggestions as under:

“A. Scrutiny of the data relating to 4690 candidates shows that

some of the candidates got only lesser time than what is due to them

for appearance in the examination. These are categorized as follows:

1.candidate who got deficiency of less than one minute: 70

2.candidate who got deficiency of less than two minute: 140

3.candidate who got deficiency of more than one minute: 94

Thus the total number of candidates who got time marginally

deficient is 210 and including those who lost more than two minutes,

it is 304.

Similarly, the data analysis shows that –

i.2276 of them had a single log in session right from

commencement of the examination till its culmination.

ii.1899 of the applicants needed multiple log in sessions with no

response in the first session. This comes under three sub

categories viz.

(1)Due extension of time was not given in 892 cases

involving multiple sessions, out of which 623

candidates got effective time of 2 hours for completing

the examination.

(2)Time extension given and availed: 558

(3)Time extension given and not availed: 449

iii.Multiple logins with response in first session: 515

14A*

1

.Clause 7 and 19 of Annexure XI, read with clause l and m

(iii) of Annexure xii cast a duty on Sify Technologies to ensure that

UPS and Generator facilities were provided so as to ensure facility

of uninterrupted activity for the candidate. The lapse in the matter

appears to be the main cause which led to need for frequent re

logins on the part of the candidate.

1

* This para, also marked as para 14 in the report has been renumbered by us as para 14A

8

15.The CLAT of 2018 was fraught with various imperfections.

The major defects found are categorized as follows:

i.The majority of complaints relate to failure of initial log in.

Multiple log in appears to have affected the performance of the

system. Software and hardware efficiency will depend upon

server capacity and efficacy. Under Cl.8, page 8, of Ann.XII, the

Service Provider was duty bound to provide trouble-free

software. Common defect of initial log in failure must have

arisen from the hardware, software or network deficiencies.

ii.Conduct of a test of this magnitude without providing

efficient software and computers to the candidates has resulted in

avoidable interruptions in answering questions.

iii. Infrastructural defects like want of/failure of the air

conditioning systems which stood in the way of the best

performance of students in many centres in the examination

conducted at the peak of summer.

iv.Power failure which affected many centres has resulted in

loss of time and disturbance to the concentration of mind

required for a smooth performance in a competitive test.

v.Failure of invigilators to facilitate re-login which is essential

for availing the benefit of extended time granted to compensate

for lost time arising from power failure, system hanging, etc.

vi.Failure to grant extended time even in cases where the first

log in attempt failed or in the subsequent attempt/s the time

obtained is lower than what is prescribed, though such reduction

was only marginal.

vii.To redress the genuine grievances projected, two courses

appear to be open. They are:

1.The cancellation of the entire test and re-conduct

thereof. The Committee does not suggest the same

considering the magnitude of the requirements and the need

to ensure smooth education of the successful candidates

during the current academic year.

2.A method to compensate the students with some marks

considering the lost time for those who underwent the need to

re long in more than once; loss of opportunity to get extended

9

time or to avail the same even after being found eligible. This

committee, as it stands, now, has no capacity to suggest a

compensatory formula. Either it has to be expanded

including a statistician of competence or in the alternative,

consider a formula or other compensatory solution suggested

at the Bar, if any.

3.When the list is redrawn after providing compensation

as above, it has to be ensured that the rank of candidates in

the existing list are not affected. That is to say, in case one

more candidates with the same mark acquires eligibility for

the reason that another person with the same mark has got

into the eligibility list as per the existing rank, (say 51), such

candidates may be added with Rank Nos. 51A, 51B, etc. and

for accommodating the number of such additional entrants an

equal number of supernumerary seats may be created on an

ad hoc basis. This will ensure that no heart burn is caused to

candidates who have already ensured their berth in the rank

list.

4.No relief is suggested on the ground of errors in

framing of questions or in the matter of fixing the answer key.

This is so because a Committee of four vice chancellors has

already reviewed the questions and answers thread bare and

found, in its meeting held on 13.05.2018 that inaccuracy

exists only in the case of Qn. No. 83(393) and proceeded to

cancel that Question and accordingly directed evaluation of

the paper treating the total marks only as 199 instead of 200

as originally planned. With regard to Qn.No.153 (463) which

originally carried a wrong answer key, it was decided by that

VC Committee to correct the answer key and to upload the

corrected key in CLAT-2018 web site. The result declared is

in accordance with the above changes. The controversy over

inaccuracy of questions and key may end there.”

6.The audit report placed along with the Report sets out all relevant

details as to that how the candidates had navigated from one question to the

other and the exact Log in and Log out time. The audit report also gives

10

details about actual time made available to each candidate including

extension of time, wherever it was granted/availed. According to the

Committee, 2276 candidates had single log in session right from the

commencement of the examination while 1899 candidates required multiple

log in sessions, the details of which are given in the extract hereinabove.

The Committee also touched upon the issue as to how the students could be

compensated. The facts indicate that out of 54464 candidates who took the

examination at 250 centres, 4690 candidates had raised grievances within the

time stipulated by this Court. The data relating to such 4690 candidates has

been catalogued by the Committee.

7.We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for the

Petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, Additional Solicitor General for Union of

India, Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3 and all

other learned advocates who appeared for various Interveners and petitioners

in connected matters. Two questions arise for our consideration:

(a)Whether the entire test needs to be cancelled and a fresh

test is required to be ordered;

11

(b)If the entire test is not to be cancelled, what methodology

can be adopted to compensate the students who had lost time

and were put to prejudice.

8.The basic grievance raised by the candidates pertains to loss of time as

a result of deficiency on part of the examination conducting body in not

ensuring adequate facilities and not affording them single log in session

without any interruption. The idea so projected is pointing towards loss of

time and inconvenience and not suggesting that the purity of examination

process was in any way compromised so as to annul the entire process. Any

outright cancellation would visit tremendous inconvenience and hardship

upon rest of the candidates. If the interest of those candidates who suffered

loss of time could otherwise be compensated, there is no reason that the

entire admission test be cancelled or annulled. We, therefore, invited learned

counsel to address the Court on what could be the possible solution to take

care of the interest of those 4690 candidates. Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior

Advocate placed before us the following Chart in relation to four petitioners

by way of illustration.

12

Sl..No.

in

GRC

Report

Roll No. Name of the

Candidate

Total

Exam

Duration

in Seconds

Notional Time

Loss in

seconds

Time Availed

in Seconds

Number of

Qns Attempted

out of 200

Number of

Qns.

Correctly

answered

No. of Qns

wrongly

answered

Original

Score out of

200

Answerin

g

Efficiency

Additional Qns.

the candidate

would have

answered had

there been no

time loss

Revised

total

number of

Qns.

answered

Revised total

number of

Qns.

Correctly

answered

Revised number

of Qns. Wrongly

answered

Revised score

after applying

the normalisa-

tion formula

Difference in

score after

applying the

normalisation

formula

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (Vi)= (iv)-(v)(vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (Xi)= (vi)/

(vii)

(Xii)=(v)/ (xi)(XIII)= (vii)

+ (xii)

(XIV)=

(xiii)* (viii)/

(Vii)

(XV)=

(XIII)*(ix)/(vii)

(XVI) (XVII)

19 10022585 Animesh

Shukla

7200 553 6647 172 125 47 113.25 38.65 14.00 186.00 135.00 51.00 122.25 9.00

37 10053562 Saksham

Sehgal

7200 364 6836 118 59 59 44.25 57.93 6.00 124.00 62.00 62.00 46.50 2.25

46 10018796 Hansika

Pandey

7200 68 7132 159 62 97 37.75 44.86 2.00 161.00 63.00 98.00 38.50 0.75

57 10008630 Kartik Singh 7200 109 7091 150 119 31 111.25 47.27 2.00 152.00 121.00 31.00 113.25 2.00

13

9.In the Chart, all the details including time availed, time lost, number

of questions attempted, number of questions correctly answered, number of

questions wrongly answered and the answering efficiency of the candidates

are tabulated. For instance, Animesh Shukla had lost 553 seconds i.e.

roughly over nine minutes. Out of 200 questions, he had correctly answered

125 questions while his answers in respect of 47 questions were found to be

wrong. The score that he secured was 113.25. Considering the number of

questions attempted, the answering efficiency was found to be 38.65 seconds

per question. The next columns give the notional figure as to how many

questions he would have answered if there was no time loss and how many

questions he would have rightly answered. These notional figures give us

statistically correct and appropriate formula to compensate for the loss of

time. The figures given in the chart against this candidate show that

applying the normalization formula, the candidate would be entitled to be

placed at a score of 122.25 as against 113.35.

10. Since all the details regarding log in and log out times are available in

respect of each of those 4690 candidates, it is possible to arrive at revised

score applying such normalization formula in respect of said 4690

candidates. We repeatedly asked the learned advocates for the petitioners

14

and intervenors whether they could suggest any alternate mechanism or

point out any infirmity or fault in normalization formula so placed by Mr. V.

Giri, learned Senior Advocate but no counsel could suggest any alternative

or point out any infirmity. According to us, the normalization formula so

suggested, in the circumstances, would be the best possible way to

compensate and take care of the interest of those 4690 candidates. At the

same time, it would also ensure that no prejudice is caused to rest of the

candidates. The normalization formula proceeds on the basis of answering

efficiency or capacity of a candidate to answer questions in given time and

then applies his rate of success as a parameter. Normally, a candidate would

first answer those questions, whose answers he is well aware of and leave

out rest to be answered in the end. His success rate in the former part would

certainly be greater, as compared to the latter. Since he would be given

benefit at the same success rate, there would be no prejudice. It is true that

repeated interruptions would cause mental stress and upset him. But that

aspect as a factor is difficult to be translated in a quantifiable parameter.

Given the circumstances, the normalization formula appears to be the correct

and appropriate methodology. We, therefore, accept the formula so

suggested and reject the contention of outright cancellation of the entire test.

15

11.Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that by 15

th

June,

2018 the entire exercise of adopting and applying the normalization formula

and arriving at a revised score in respect of 4690 candidates could be

undertaken and completed. We record said submission and proceed on that

premise. We have also been given to understand that the first round of

counseling has already begun.

12.Having considered the entirety of the matter, we give following

directions:

A).The exercise of applying normalization formula as suggested by

Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate and revising the scores of 4690

candidates shall be completed by 15.06.2018. Respondent Nos.2 and 3

namely the National University of Advance Legal Studies, Kochi and

Core Committee-Common Law Admission Test 2018 through its

Convenor –Vice Chancellor, National University of Advance Legal

Studies, Kochi shall undertake the entire exercise and complete it by

15.06.2018.

B).Upon completion of said exercise, the revised scores of 4690

candidates will be published by respondents 2 and 3 on the official

website on 16.06.2018.

16

C).Based on such revised scores the merit list will be rearranged in

terms of Para 3 of the suggestion given by the Committee. In other

words, the revised position of the concerned candidate will be

indicated by rank Nos.51A-51B as illustrated by the Committee.

D).The first round of counseling which began on 10.06.2018 shall

go on without any impediment and if any candidate is allocated a seat,

such allocation will not in any way stand adversely altered as a result

of revised position granted to any of the candidates from the body of

4690 candidates.

E).If any candidate from the body of 4690 candidates is otherwise

entitled, that is to say even without the benefit of revised score, to be

allocated any seat, it goes without saying that such allocation will not

in any way stand adversely affected.

F).In the second round of counseling the rank/merit list so

prepared in terms of these directions shall be the governing list and

the seats in second and subsequent rounds of counseling will be

allocated on the basis of the list so revised in pursuance of these

directions.

17

G).If a candidate, as a result of revised rank list being operative in

second and subsequent round of counseling wants to secure admission

in any other college of his or her choice going by his or her revised

ranking, he/she shall be allowed to do so without incurring any

disadvantage. In such cases, the fees if deposited in the first college

shall be given due credit against the admission in the second college

which the candidate may opt for as a result of revised ranking.

13.We have dealt with the matter only from the stand point of how best to

compensate the candidates who lost valuable time while undergoing test.

We must record that we are not at all satisfied with the way the examination

was conducted. The body which was given the task of conducting the

examination was duty bound to ensure facilities of uninterrupted UPS and

generator facility. The record indicates complete inadequacy on that point.

We therefore direct Union of India in the Ministry of Human Resources and

Development to appoint a Committee to look into the matter and take

appropriate remedial measures including penal action, if any, against the

body which was entrusted with the task. The committee so constituted shall

also look into the aspect of having completely satisfactory arrangements in

future so that no such instances are repeated or reoccur in coming years. We

must also observe that the idea of entrusting the task of monitoring the

18

conduct of entire examination to different Law Universities every year also

needs to be re-visited. The agreement with the examination conducting

body, which was placed on record indicates that as against the amount made

over to such examination conducting body, the fees charged from the

candidates are far in excess. The committee shall bestow consideration to all

these aspects after having inputs from such sources as it may deem

appropriate including Bar Council of India and make a detailed report to this

Court within three months from today.

14.Since we have dealt with the matter and passed comprehensive

directions, we request the High Courts to dispose of the pending matters

raising challenge in respect of CLAT 2018, in the light of our directions.

15.All the petitions are thus disposed of. We record our sincere

appreciation for the efforts put in by the members of the Grievance

Redressal Committee and for the assistance rendered by all the learned

counsel.

...…..…………….J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

...……….……….J

(Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi

June 13, 2018