first_imgTop Stories”CLAT 2020 Is Erroneous, Faulty, Defective And Discriminatory”: Plea In SC Seeks CLAT Retest [Read Petition] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK4 Oct 2020 1:41 AMShare This – xA writ Petition has been filed in Supreme Court seeking a direction to National Law School Consortium to re-conduct the Common Law Admission Test 2020.The Petition filed by Five CLAT 2020 aspirants submitted that “CLAT 2020‟ is erroneous, faulty, defective & discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India.As per the Petition ‘CLAT 2020‟ in…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA writ Petition has been filed in Supreme Court seeking a direction to National Law School Consortium to re-conduct the Common Law Admission Test 2020.The Petition filed by Five CLAT 2020 aspirants submitted that “CLAT 2020‟ is erroneous, faulty, defective & discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India.As per the Petition ‘CLAT 2020‟ in peculiar circumstances wherein results declared by the Consortium of NLU, are totally wrong, incorrect, erroneous and therefore, biased due to following reasons:- 1. The candidates have chosen/selected/ticked correct answers; however, it is reflecting in result that wrong & different options have been chosen/selected/ticked. 
2. The result is displaying and calculating marks in those questions, which were not even attempted by the candidates. 
3. Candidates have chosen/selected/ticked different options; however, in result different answers are shown as chosen/selected/ticked. 
4. 10 questions are either itself wrong, or their answers which are uploaded on website are wrong. 
It is also submitted that the Consortium of National Law University issued press release on 3rd October 2020 in very arrogant way, stating therein that large number of objections are filed because CLAT-2020 had made filing of objections absolutely free, however, other institutions charge Rs. 1,000/- per objection. Further, that Consortium issued a notification dated 03.10.2020 on Modifications in the Questions and Answers wherein they dropped the questions no. 146, 147 & 150 and modified the answers key for questions no. 08, 35 & 148. Therefore, neither grievance committee nor the consortium looked into the issues of objections / grievances filed by the petitioners / aspirants in large numbers, however, dealt the same with biased approach in very arrogant way.It is also submitted that some students comes from non-English background, therefore, such a debauched focus on English reading and comprehension skill has a disproportionate impact on these students. This clearly renders CLAT 2020 discriminatory and violate of Articles 14 and 15; and on this ground alone, the exam ought to be quashed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ‘Many questions in “CLAT 2020‟ were formed in such a way that all four options were not the actual answers according to the questions, for example, question no‟s 146 to 150. Further, the wrong answers were provided in the answer key for several questions, e.g. questions 5, 6, 8, 14, 16, 19, 35, 45, 103, 122 and 125 (From the English, Logical Reasoning and Legal Reasoning sections). Apart from that, many questions had more than one right answers, so instead of choosing correct answers the candidates were trying to guess “most appropriate” option”.It is also submitted that several other questions were of such a standard that even seasoned practicing lawyers would need to do extensive legal research before attempting to answer them, and even after such research no objective answer could be given to these questions. These questions were based on opinion rather than based upon study and knowledge, hence should not have been included in such “objective” type examination Click Here To Download Petition[Read Petition] Next Storylast_img read more