Siddhi Sandeep Ladda vs. Consortium Of National Law Universities

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 714

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12786 of 2025)


SIDDHI SANDEEP LADDA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITIES AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

WITH

J U D G M E N T


B.R. GAVAI, J.


1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and final
rd
order in LPA No.1250 of 2024 dated 23 April 2025 passed
by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”). The Division Bench
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.05.16
13:18:12 IST
Reason:
of the High Court was seized of the Letter Patents Appeals
which were filed challenging the judgment and final order
1

th
dated 20 December 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge
of the High Court as well as a batch of Writ Petitions which
were filed across various High Courts and which had been
transferred to it by this Court.
3. We have heard Shri K. K. Venugopal and Shri Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Appellant; Shri Raj Shekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Consortium of National Law Universities
(hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.1”); Shri Dhanesh
Relan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2; Shri
Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel and other learned
counsel appearing for the intervenor(s).
4. At the outset, we must express our deep anguish
regarding the callous and casual manner in which the
Respondent No.1 has been framing questions for the
Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred to as,
“CLAT”), an examination on the basis of which meritorious
candidates get entry into the prestigious National Law
Universities across the country.
5. This Court has on a previous occasion by way of a
judgment in the case of Disha Panchal and Others v.
2

1
Union of India through the Secretary and Others , while
dealing with a batch of petitions highlighting improper
conduct of CLAT, observed thus:
15.
“ 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 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.”
(emphasis added)


1
(2018) 17 SCC 278 : 2018 INSC 553
3

6. It can thus be seen that this Court has constituted a
committee to inter-alia look into the shortcomings in the
conduct of CLAT. It can further be seen that this Court has
specifically observed that the idea of entrusting the task of
monitoring the conduct of the entire examination to different
Law Universities every year also needs to be re-visited.
7. We are informed that though the said committee’s
report has been received, it has been placed before a Bench
of this Court seized of WP(C) No. 600 of 2015 titled as
“ Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and Others ”.
The sole petitioner in the said matter, however, has passed
away. We shall, accordingly, after dealing with the present
matter pass an appropriate order in this regard.
8. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, at the
outset, we must state that in academic matters, the Courts
are generally reluctant to interfere, inasmuch as they do not
possess the requisite expertise for the same. However, when
the academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely
affects the career aspirations of lakhs of students, the Court
is left with no alternative but to interfere.
9. From the impugned judgment and final order of the
4

Division Bench of the High Court, it is clear that several
questions and/or the answers thereto were found to be not
suitable. The High Court had, therefore, passed an order with
regard to various questions. However, in the present appeals,
we are only concerned with six questions, i.e., Question Nos.
56, 77, 78, 88, 115 and 116 . We shall deal with each
question individually.
A. Question No. 56
10. The material provided alongwith Question No. 56 is as
follows:
nd
“X. The 42 Constitutional Amendment Act 1976
introduced the concept of environmental protection
in an explicit manner into the Constitution though
introduction of Article 48A and Article 51A(g). In
many judgments, the Supreme Court ruled that
both the State and its residents have a fundamental
duty to preserve and protect their natural
resources. The recent judgment obliquely makes
way for an enforceable right, and a potential
obligation on the state unless the same is
overturned by an Act of Parliament.
India is signatory of various international
environmental conservation treaties under which
India has the binding commitment to reduce carbon
emission. During the COP 21, India signed Paris
Agreement along with 196 countries, under which
universally binding agreement was made to limit
greenhouse gas emission to levels that would
prevent global temperatures from increasing to
more than 1.5 degree Celsius before the industrial
revolution. India has committed to generating 50%
5

of its energy through renewable resources and will
generate 500 GW of energy from non-fossil fuels by
2030, reducing the carbon emission by 1 billion ton.
Additionally, India has committed to achieve net
zero carbon emission target by 2070.

Supreme Court’s March 21, 2024 verdict builds on
the bulwark of jurisprudence in place since 1986,
and, through various other judgments, the Supreme
Court has recognized the right to clean environment
along with right to clean air, water and soil free
from pollution which is absolutely necessary for the
enjoyment of life. Any disturbance with these basic
elements of environment would amount to violation
of Article 21. It also establishes duty of the state to
maintain ecological balance and hygienic
environment. Although right to clear environment
has existed, by recognizing the right against climate
change it shall compel the states to prioritize
environmental protection and sustainable
development.”

11. Question No. 56 and the answer options provided
thereunder are as follows:
“ 56. As per the aforementioned passage and
decision of the Supreme Court:
a. The fundamental duty to preserve and
protect natural resources is upon the
State only.
b. Citizens alone have the fundamental duty
to preserve and protect natural
resources.
c. Both the state and citizens have the duty
to preserve and protect natural
resources.
d. State has the duty to maintain ecological
balance and citizens have the right
against climate change.”
6

12. It can thus be seen that the answer option (a) that the
fundamental duty to preserve and protect the natural
resources is upon the State only, is totally wrong which is
found to be so even on a perusal of the material provided.
13. Similarly, the answer option (b) that the citizens alone
have the fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural
resources, is equally wrong.
14. According to Respondent No.1, the answer option (d)
that the State has the duty to maintain ecological balance
and citizens have the right against climate change, is the
correct option.
15. No doubt that if a candidate on a reading of the material
provided and by applying logic and reason selects the answer
option (d), it would be a correct answer.
16. However, before we reach a conclusion it will also be
appropriate to refer to the answer option (c) which states that
both the State and the Citizens have the duty to preserve
natural resources.
17. Perusal of the first paragraph of the material provided
by Respondent No.1 to answer Question No. 56 would reveal
7

that it is stated in second sentence itself that in many
judgments the Supreme Court ruled that both the State and
its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and
protect their natural resources.
18. Shri Raj Shekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, has attempted to justify the
stand of Respondent No.1 by submitting that the phrase
used in the second sentence is that “ it is the State and its
residents ” who have a Fundamental Duty to protect and
preserve their natural resources. According to Respondent
No.1, therefore, the use of the word “citizens” as provided in
answer option (c) is not appropriate and the only correct
answer is option (d).
19. We are amazed that such a stand has been taken by
Respondent No.1, which is expected to be led by scholars
and experts in the field of legal education.
20. This Court, time and again, has emphasized that it is
the duty of both the State and its citizens to protect and
preserve the natural resources. We, therefore, fail to
understand as to why a candidate who has marked answer
option (c) should not be awarded the marks for this question.
8

21. Perusal of paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment and
final order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
would show that the High Court has come to the considered
conclusion that option (d) is the only correct answer.
22. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court
qua Question No. 56 and further direct the Respondent No.1
to award positive marks to all the candidates who selected
either answer option (c) or (d) and only those candidates who
selected either answer option (a) or (b) should be given the
negative marks in Question No. 56.
B. Question No. 77
23. Coming next to Question No. 77. The material provided
for the said question is as follows:
“XIII. The Contract Act 1872 deals with contract
law in India, its rights, duties, and exceptions
arising out of it. Section 2(h) of the Act gives us the
definition of a contract, which is simply an
agreement enforceable by law. To understand the
difference between void agreements and voidable
contracts it is important to talk about sections 2(h),
2(a), 2(i), 2(d), 14, 16(3) and 15, 24-28 of the Indian
Contract Act. Void agreements, are fundamentally
invalid making them unenforceable by default.

These agreements cannot be fulfilled as they consist
of illegal elements and they cannot be enforced even
after subjecting it to both parties. However, in the
case of voidable contract, the agreement is initially
9

enforceable but it is later on denied at the option of
either of the parties due to various reasons.
Unless rejected by a party, this contract will remain
valid and enforceable. The party who is at the
disadvantage due to any circumstance applicable to
the contract has the ability to render the agreement
void. A void agreement is void ab initio making it
impossible to rectify any defects in it while voidable
contracts can be rectified. In case of a void
agreement, neither of the parties is subject to any
compensation for any losses but voidable contracts
have some remedies.
A valid agreement forms a contract that may again
be either valid or voidable. The primary difference
between a void agreement and voidable contract is
that a void agreement cannot be converted into a
contract.”

23A. Question No. 77 and the options provided thereunder
are as follows:
“ 77. An agreement made by an adult but involving
a minor child where the signatory is a minor child
himself, this agreement would be:
(a) A valid and enforceable agreement
(b) A voidable agreement
(c) A void agreement
(d) An agreement that cannot be
enforced by the minor”

24. It is the contention of the Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent No.1, that even without having prior
legal knowledge, upon reading of the material provided and
by applying logic and reason, a candidate could have given
10

the answer as answer option (b) i.e., a voidable agreement.
25. The Division Bench of the High Court has, however, in
paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment and final order
come to the considered conclusion that to answer the said
question, a candidate would require prior knowledge of law.
The High Court, therefore, held Question No. 77 to be “Out of
Syllabus” and directed that it be excluded and treated as
withdrawn.
26. Even before us, it is sought to be urged by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 so also
by the learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the
intervenors that answering the said question would not be
possible unless a candidate has prior knowledge of law,
specifically the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is further
contended that in the absence of such knowledge, it is not
possible to give the correct answer to the said question.
27. It is clear that the modality that is adopted by
Respondent No.1 in setting the question paper is one of
providing basic information in the form of reading material
which precedes the question or set of questions.

11

28. Perusal of the material provided for Question No. 77
would clearly reveal that if a candidate applies logic and
reason, they would be able to make out a distinction between
what is a void agreement, what is a voidable agreement and
what is a valid and enforceable agreement.
29. A reading of the aforesaid material makes it amply clear
that unless rejected by a party, a voidable contract will
remain valid and enforceable . The party who is at a
disadvantage due to any circumstance applicable to the
contract has the ability to render the agreement void .

30. It is thus clear that an agreement made by an adult but
involving a minor child where the signatory is a minor child
himself, would not make such an agreement either valid and
enforceable, or void or an agreement that cannot be enforced
by the minor but it will make it a voidable agreement i.e., it
will be rendered void ab initio when the minor who has signed
it chooses to reject the same.
31. As such, we find that even without having any prior
knowledge of law, upon appreciation of the material provided
and by applying logic and reason, a candidate can arrive at
the answer to Question No.77.
12

32. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court
qua Question No. 77 and further direct the Respondent No.1
to give positive marks to all those candidates who have given
the answer as option (b) to the said question and all those
candidates who have selected either option (a), (c) or (d) shall
be given negative marks.
C. Question No. 78
33. Next is Question No. 78. The material provided for
answering the said question is the same as that for Question
No. 77.

34. Question No. 78 and the options provided thereunder
are as follows:
“ 78. Which of the following scenarios would most
likely result in a void agreement?
a. An agreement signed by someone under
duress
b. A contract with mutually agreed terms to
sell a house.
c. An agreement to pay 10 lakhs on getting
a government job.
d. A contract with a minor who understands
the terms.”

35. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent No. 2 that the most appropriate
answer is not option (c).
13

36. It is, however, the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, that
answer option (c) would be the correct answer.
37.
The Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 25
of the impugned judgment and final order has also rejected
the contentions raised therein with regard to the deletion of
Question No. 78.
38. We are in agreement with the High Court that the
answer option (c) is the correct answer for Question No. 78.
We, therefore, do not interfere with the finding of the High
Court insofar as Question No. 78 is concerned.
D. Question No. 88
39. Coming next to Question No. 88. The material provided
for the said question is as follows:
“Read the information carefully and answer the
questions based on the seating arrangement:
“Ram, Shyam, Rohit, Mohit, Rohan,
Sohan, Mohan, Rakesh and Suresh are
sitting around a circle facing the centre.
Rohit is third to the left of Ram. Rohan is
fourth to the right of Ram. Mohit is fourth
to the left of Suresh who is second to the
right of Ram. Sohan is third to the right
of Shyam. Mohan is not an immediate
neighbour of Ram.”

14

40. Question No. 88 and the options provided thereunder
are as follows:
“ 88. Who is second to the left of Rakesh?
(a) Ram
(b) Mohan
(c) Mohit
(d) Data inadequate”

41. We are informed that Respondent No.1 has itself deleted
question No. 85, which reads thus:
“ 85. What is Rakesh’s position with respect to
Rohan?
(a) Eighth to the right of Ram
(b) Fourth to the left
(c) Fifth to the right
(d) Fifth to the left”


42. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 before the
Division Bench of the High Court that the answer to
Question No. 88 should be option (d).
43. The Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 33
of the impugned judgment and final order had decided not to
interfere with the answer provided by Respondent No.1 to
Question No. 88 i.e., answer option (d).
15

44. We, however, find that there is not a significant
difference between Question No. 85 and 88. The material
provided for Question No. 88 is also the same as that for
Question No. 85. In our view, therefore, if the Respondent
No.1 thought it fit to delete Question No. 85, it ought to have
deleted Question No. 88 as well.
45. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court
qua Question No. 88 and further direct Respondent No.1 to
delete Question No. 88.
E. Question Nos. 115

46. Next, we come to Question No. 115. The material
provided for the said questions is as follows:
“XXI. According to the estimates of the World
Inequality Report 2022, in India, men earn 82
percent of the labour income, whereas women earn
18 percent of it. A woman agriculture field labourer
makes Rs. 88 per day lesser than her male
counterpart, according to the Ministry of
Agriculture’s data for 2020-21. While a man is paid
Rs. 383 a day on an average, a woman makes a
mere Rs. 294 a day. The gap in their daily wages is
more than the cost of two kilograms of rice. This gap
differs from State to State. Field laborers, for
instance, make the most money in Kerala. While a
man gets Rs. 789 per day, a woman is paid Rs. 537.
While this is the highest amount paid to a woman
labourer in a State, it is also Rs. 252 lesser than
what her male counter part was paid. As of 2020-
21, Tamil Nadu has the highest gender wage gap
among agriculture field laborers at 112 per cent. It
16

is followed by Goa (61 per cent) and Kerala. The
wage gap in the lowest in Jharkhand and Gujarat (6
per cent), but the women laborers there get paid Rs.
239 and Rs. 247 per day, respectively.
Men earn more than women across all forms of
work, the gap greatest for the self-employed. In
2023, male self-employed workers earned 2.8 times
that of women. In contrast, male regular wage
workers earned 24% more than woman and male
casual workers earned 48% more. The gender gap in
earnings is still a persistent phenomenon. However,
there are differences in trends. The gender gap has
increased for self-employed workers, while falling for
regular wage workers. Male regular wage workers
earned 34% more than women from 2019 to 2022,
with the gap falling to 24% in 2023.”

47. Question No. 115 and the options provided thereunder
are as follows:
“115. If the wages paid to men working in
agricultural sector in Goa are Rs. 335 on an
average, what is the amount of wages paid to
women in the region.
(a) Rs. 204 approx.
(b) Rs. 330 approx.
(c) Rs. 239 approx.
(d) None of these”

48. It can be seen that the Division Bench of the High
Court, in paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment and final
order, came to the conclusion that as the Respondent No.1
had itself given a wrong option as the answer, marks shall be
granted to only those candidates who had attempted the
17

Question No. 115.
49. We, however, on a perusal of the material provided, find
that for answering Question No. 115, the candidates will
have to undergo a detailed mathematics analysis, which is
not expected in an objective test.
50. We, therefore, set aside the direction issued by the
Division Bench of the High Court qua Question No. 115 and
further direct Respondent No.1 to delete Question No. 115.
F. Question No. 116
51. Last, we come to Question No. 116. The material
provided for answering the said question is the same as that
for Question No. 115.
52. Question Nos. 116 and the options provided thereunder
are as follows:
“116. With reference to the information in Ques.
115 above, which region of the below mentioned
states offers the least wages to the women workers
in any sector.
(a) Gujarat
(b) Goa
(c) Kerala
(d) Jharkhand”
53. Perusal of Question No. 116 reveals that the said
question is based on the information provided in Question
18

No. 115. Therefore, if Question No. 115 is deleted, Question
No. 116 must also be deleted as a necessary corollary.
54. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, found
that there was a cross referencing error in Question No. 116
in Sets ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ only. It, therefore, in paragraph 46 of
the impugned judgment and order directed that all
candidates with Sets ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ be granted marks. The
same relief was not granted to candidates with Set ‘A’ since
Set ‘A’ did not have this error.
55. Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1
submits that the finding of the Division Bench of the High
Court is correct but the consequential direction is not
appropriate. It is further fairly submitted that Respondent
No.1 is willing to withdraw the question across all four sets
so as to ensure that all candidates are scored out of the same
total number of questions.
56. We find that in order to put all the candidates on equal
footing, Question No. 116 be deleted from all the Sets as well.
57. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the Division
Bench of the High Court Question No. 116 and further
qua
direct Respondent No.1 to delete Question No. 116.
19

58. In the result, we dispose of the appeals and all the
intervention/impleadment application(s), by modifying the
rd
judgment and final order dated 23 April 2025 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court to the above extent.
59. We direct the Respondent No.1 to amend the answer
key, revise the marksheet and re-publish/notify the final list
of candidates forthwith and commence with the counselling
within 2 weeks from today.
60. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


….........................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)




............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI
MAY 07, 2025.

20