One of the petitioners of the first Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 2012 petition, Shubham Sinha, has filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, dismissing in limine the challenge to the content of the CLAT 2012. The first writ against CLAT 2012 should not have been dismissed by the Delhi high court, said a division bench of the court today. Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Vipin Sanghi sought a response from the 2012 CLAT convenor NLU Jodhpur on the actions taken by the law school on the representations against the examination process made by candidates this year.The Delhi High Court has issued a notice. "The next hearing is on 23rd july. They will look into forming a permanent CLAT body now. NLU Jodhpur also needs to give an explanation for the entire thing," said Raghul Sudheesh,associate editor of the legal website Bar & Bench.
The court was not inclined to re-hold the examination or recalculate the marks, but admitted the appeal to look into the prayer in the writ asking for the constitution of a permanent CLAT convening committee instead of continuing with the current system of rotating the convenorship between the participating national law schools.
"The Delhi High Court has done something positive today. They will at least now consider the establishment of a permanent CLAT body which we all are looking forward to. Once it is formed, most of the problems and issues that we face during CLAT examinations every year will be taken care of. There will be a uniform standard and consistency of pattern for examinations every year," opined Raghul.
Three CLAT 2012 candidates Ujjwal Madan, Shubham Sinha, and Osho Donnie Ashok had filed a petition in the Delhi high court against NLU Jodhpur, the Bar Council of India, and the ministry of human resource development for asking questions out of the prescribed syllabus in CLAT 2012. Two days later, and a day prior to the declaration of the exam's results, Justice Sunil Gaur had dismissed the writ in limine. When GyanCentral contacted Donnie, he refused to comment anything on the matter before the final verdict comes out.
On being informed that the CLAT committee was already discussing solutions, Gaur had observed that the petition was premature and that the proper course for the petitioners would be to make representations to the CLAT convenor and seek judicial remedy after the examination's result was declared.
CLAT guru Rajneesh Singh told GyanCentral, "Currently there is no knowledge transfer happening between NLSU's who conduct CLAT every year. Forming a separate body for conducting and supervising CLAT is a step, I highly recommend." To read more about his views on CLAT click here.
Click here to see the Appeal filed before the Delhi High Court.
Image Source: Flickr