Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
WITH
(FOR DIRECTIONS)
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
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-
MALPRACTICES IN CONDUCTION OF
6. STATEMENT OF NON-FILING
7. ANNEXURE-P-1:
8. ANNEXURE P-2:
9. ANNEXURE P-3:
examination.
-5 on vc@nuals.ac.in.
17.05.2018.
downloaded on 17.05.2017.
survey.
16. Vakalatnama
Note : All Respondents have been served either through their nominated
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NOTICE OF MOTION
To,
Take notice that the accompanying petition will be listed before the Court on
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
New Delhi.
Sir,
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
Hence, it is most respectfully requested that the present matter be listed urgently
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
NAMIT SAXENA / NISHANT AWANA
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. AkhilBhartiyaVidyarthiParishad
… Petitioner No. 1
2. Vibhav Chandra
…Petitioner No. 2
3. Mangesh Mani
…Petitioner No. 3
Versus
1. Union of India
…Respondent No. 1
2. Union of India
…Respondent No. 2
…Respondent No. 3
…Respondent No. 4
Through its Vice Chancellor, Medical College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony,
…Respondent No. 5
Office at 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New
Delhi 110002
…Respondent No. 6
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
SYNOPSIS
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being
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
Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) this year has been the worst conducted
examination for entrance in National Law Schools till date. The multiple staged
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
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
application process till the stage when the students, as some places, were not
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
be that the students, including the Petitioner No. 2 & 3, were allotted a time period
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
Few glitches (which have now become a routine affair) which have been
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
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
e. CLAT 2015 known to be the worst online conduct of CLAT had shown
after the test paper carried questions in bulk from mock test papers of a few
g. The tragedy does not end here, because in year 2017 also, the question paper
2018 is when the students are facing technical glitches, incompetent invigilator,
faulty systems, the discrepancy between the test time allotted to various
The miseries and concerns of the students have been widely reported in
the national media. It has been reported that the instances of mismanagement
That the Petitioner No. 2 is a meritorious student and a law graduate from
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
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
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
prescribed time limit, the Petitioners faced some more serious issues as provided
hereunder:
loss of time.
3. Owing to the technical errors and due no adequate response from
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
wide exam and hence, they should not conduct exams more than the university-
11.05.2008 The exam was conducted for the first time wherein a
websites.
05.2016 The test paper carried questions in bulk from mock test
related websites.
ambiguous questions.
prestigious examination
Delhi.
Ghitorni, NewDelhi.
the petitioner No. 2 not only got less time but also
questions.
lodged.
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
2018
TO,
COMPANIAN JUDGES;
OF THE PETITIONERS
schools of India.
2. That the Petitioner No. 1 isa student organisation engaged in the task of
ideal student movement which will work in the wider context of National
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.
4. The conduct of CLAT over the last several years has been continuously
in these exams every year, whose interest the Petitioner seeks to represent
6. That the Petitioner No. 2 is a meritorious student and a law graduate from
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
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
No. 2 was allowed entry. This harassment, even before the examination
had started, caused severe tension and negatively affected the mental
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
question and the time kept running while the system was frozen.
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.
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
c. The syllabus was not defined but had an ‘etc’ and a lot of out of the
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
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
showed 4:54 minutes due the paper got auto submitted thereby leading
A true copy of the admit card of Petitioner No. 3 for CLAT UG 2018 is
8. The Respondents herein are ‘state’ for the purposes of Article 12 of the
through.
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
10. The Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred as “the CLAT”),
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.
Currently, there are nineteen national law universities taking part in the
12. In year 2018, the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi,
13. CLAT examination has always been a subject of controversies where the
had to mark answers in paper-sheets but since year 2014, the examination
has been conducted online. The common element among all is the
14. CLAT 2018 was conducted on 13.05.2018 and was conducted online on
took part in the said examination. The candidates faced multiple technical
15. The candidates have reported glitches such as encrypted questions or non-
visible answers options. The candidates raised the issue through many
16. The blog post by ‘Lawoctopus’, a major website related to the five year
invigilators;
[Pages __ to ___ ]
17. A writ petition was filed in Rajasthan High Court by two candidates in
the test centre and denial of extra time to which the candidates were
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. 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
19. The exact nature of technical glitches varies from different examination
and alarming. The frustration and confusion of candidates taking test was,
extra time was allotted arbitrarily to students depends upon the situation
b. In 2011, the question booklets had underlined options which were also
the answers.
discrepancies.
raised after the test paper carried questions in bulk from mock test
g. The tragedy does not end here, because in year 2017 also, the question
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
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
of students.
22. In the 2012 CLAT paper set by NLU Jodhpur, as many as 7 questions were
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.
23. In the 2014 CLAT paper set by GNLU, Gandhinagarthe Model Answer
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
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
25. In 2015, Prof. Shamnad Basheer, a legal scholar of repute has filed the
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
27. From the afore stated facts, the incompetence, unfair and prejudicial
examination is apparent. This unfair and prejudicial act on the part of the
28. It’s high time now when an independent body should be constituted and/or
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
GROUNDS
The present Writ Petition is being filed on the following grounds and without
India.
fee and are legally entitled to get equal opportunity to give the CLAT –
C. Because the Petitioners were denied the prescribed time of 2 hours and
extra time i.e. making a total of two and a half hours against the prescribed
D. BECAUSE The acts of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and inaction on the part
examination (which of such high repute) of the Students across the country
examination.
the Constitution.
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
H. BECAUSE the Petitioners were denied any assistance and no heed was
questions papers set each year, and therefore violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution
M. BECAUSE the student spends such considerable time for the preparation
unprepared.
N. BECAUSE the two hours examination and its result is decisive for future
of many students.
each law school has to prepare for and conduct the CLAT exam from
P. BECAUSE the students take a year drop expecting next year CLAT
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
issues.
S. BECAUSE the systems that are crashing, hanging and not working during
life to go to private law college, take a year drop or simply let go law.
U. BECAUSE the corrupt hardwares in the computer, dysfunctional mouse
X. BECAUSE many students are opting law as a career option, and ill
conducted examinations will all their time, money and efforts into vain.
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: -
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Union
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
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
To
Petitioner above-named.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
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
4. That in the interest of Justice this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to :
c) Pass such further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
PROOF OF SERVICE
1. Union of India
…Respondent No. 1
2. Union of India
…Respondent No. 2
…Respondent No. 4
Through its Vice Chancellor, Medical College - NAD Rd, HMT Colony,
…Respondent No. 5
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
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.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
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.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
VERSUS
COURT FEES
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
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,
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
DATE: 18.05.2018
PLACE: DELHI