CLAT 2015: Bom HC seeks clarification qua expert committee findings (No interim relief)

Arguments over the ongoing CLAT went on for close to ninety minutes today in courtroom 40 of the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench of Justices Anoop Mohta and VL Achliya was hearing a challenge by law aspirant Shubham Dutt..Represented by senior counsel Kevic Setalvad, the petitioner argued that certain answers mentioned in the answer key were completely incorrect, and that the findings of the expert committee ought to come under greater scrutiny..Launching an aggressive attack on the expert committee’s findings of only two incorrect questions, senior counsel Setalvad gave seven examples of answers that the petitioner claimed were patently incorrect..Indeed, the allegations raised do deserve a second look. For example, one of the questions seeks the identification of a pair of opposites; the answer key though provides a pair of synonyms. The answer key was subsequently examined by the expert committee, yet there was no change in the answer key..In fact, as Setalvad was reading out one of the questions, opposite counsel Ravi Kadam conceded that that particular answer appeared to be incorrect. Thanking his opposite counsel for being so fair, Setalvad also gave two examples of questions lifted from previous NLISU entrance exams (in 1996 and 1998); the answers provided by CLAT to these questions were not the same as the ones provided by NLISU..Tearing into the expert committee’s findings, and the CLAT organisers’ refusal to correct the mistakes, Setalvad argued that,.“Mistakes can be made, but to support the indefensible is appalling.”.Setalvad did suggest that it would still not be too late to order a re-examination although the Bench did not seem very enthused about this idea. Citing the recent AIPMT judgment, Setalvad said even though students would suffer some inconvenience, a re-examination should not be ruled out..On the other side, the CLAT Convenor was represented by senior counsel Ravi Kadam, briefed by Rishabh Sancheti. Kadam raised the preliminary issue of delay i.e. the petitioner ought to have raised this grievance at a much earlier stage rather than in the middle of the allotment process. It is difficult to gauge how taken the Bench was with this line of argument, although things ought to be clear on the next day of hearing..Kadam also argued that the court should not sit in appeal over the findings of an expert committee, and that once the expert panel came out with its findings, the matter should rest there. He also said that some of the questions rested on a matter of perception and that even though some may opine that one option is correct, another may think otherwise. Hence it would be advisable to stick with the expert panel’s findings..During the course of the arguments, it appeared that the Bench was not keen on interfering with the allotment process although no orders were passed to this effect. At one point of time, the Bench did question which NLU the petitioner had been allotted and what the petitioner’s preference list was, however no more information was sought..At the end though the Bench observed,.“Once we come to the conclusion that the [revised] answers are wrong, we will see what orders are to be passed”.The court went on to ask the Respondents to file a clarification as to whether the petitioner’s representation (highlighting the discrepancies) were considered by the expert committee..The order passed reads,.[We] are of the view that, at this stage, for passing any further orders, it is desirable that the concerned respondents should get the clarification from the Expert Committee referring to the objections so raised by the petitioner......Importance of additions or deductions of marks can not be overlooked in any competitive examinations. Here as stated, there are 7 such answers, which may affect the merit of the petitioner or such other students..(Read full order below).In all probability, the court will pass its final decision on the next day of hearing (Tuesday). Till then, RMLNLU and the CLAT Core Committee will have to fend off a number of petitions, including this one, filed in different High Courts..At last count, there were petitions in the Allahabad High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the Kerala High Court..As to what is going to happen in this particular matter, well it is certainly a tricky question. If the court does decide to overrule the expert committee’s findings, it will result in further litigation and delayed results. If an exception is made for the petitioner, that too will mean more litigation..What is clear though is the fact that with each passing day, the likelihood of this reaching the Supreme Court increases..It is also clarified here that there was no interim stay granted at any point by the Bombay High Court. Hence there was no opportunity for the said stay to be vacated. This was incorrectly reported by us, and we are deeply apologetic about the same..[scribd id=269670091 key=key-wdx8WD1Hfmksxzk9DMMh mode=scroll]