Summary
The Supreme Court declined to cancel CLAT 2018 despite serious technical and infrastructure failures. It adopted a normalization formula based on time lost, answering efficiency and success rate for 4,690 timely grievance candidates. Revised rankings would govern later counselling while protecting first-round allocations. The Union was also directed to investigate the failures, consider remedial and possible penal action, and examine future examination arrangements and fees.
Issues
- Whether CLAT 2018 should be cancelled because of technical disruptions and lost examination time.
- What compensatory scoring and counselling safeguards should apply to the affected grievance candidates.
- What institutional inquiry and preventive measures were required.
Held
- The grievances primarily concerned lost time and disruption, rather than demonstrated compromise of the examination’s purity requiring wholesale annulment. Effective compensation could address those losses without imposing the hardship of cancellation on other candidates. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10)
- The Court adopted normalization using each candidate’s recorded time loss, answering efficiency and success rate. No alternative mechanism or demonstrated defect was offered; mental stress from interruptions could not readily be quantified. The exercise covered the 4,690 candidates whose timely grievances and data had been examined. (¶¶ 6, 9, 10)
- Respondents 2 and 3 were to complete normalization by 15 June 2018, publish revised scores on 16 June, and rearrange the merit list using intermediate ranks in accordance with the Committee’s suggestion. The revised list would govern second and subsequent counselling rounds. (¶¶ 12(A), 12(B), 12(C), 12(F))
- First-round counselling and allocations were protected from adverse alteration due to the revised positions, including seats independently earned by grievance candidates. A candidate moving to another college under the revised ranking could do so without disadvantage and receive credit for fees already deposited. (¶¶ 12(D), 12(E), 12(G))
- The Court found the examination arrangements unsatisfactory, particularly uninterrupted power support. The Union’s education ministry was to appoint a committee to examine failures, remedial measures including possible penal action, future arrangements, annual rotation of monitoring responsibility and fee levels, obtain appropriate inputs including from the Bar Council, and report within three months. (¶ 13)
- High Courts were requested to dispose of pending CLAT 2018 challenges in light of these comprehensive directions. (¶ 14)
Result
Petitions disposed of with normalization and counselling directions; cancellation rejected. Union committee to examine the failures and future safeguards and report within three months.