CLAT PG 2024–25: Securing Interim Relief & Fighting for Fairness
Some cases come not with noise, but with quiet urgency. This one began at my desk with a stack of documents, a few nervous students, and a shared sense that something wasn’t right.
They had appeared for the CLAT PG 2024–25 exam. When the final answer key was released, a few questions raised serious doubts in their minds. But the real problem wasn’t the questions. It was the process.
The Consortium Of National Law Universities had set a fee of ₹1,000 per question to raise any objection. And this fee wasn’t mentioned when the application process began. It was introduced later; just when students needed a fair chance to challenge the answer key.
At Sushrut Joshi Law Clinic, we’ve dealt with many kinds of petitions over the years. But this matter called for a different kind of sensitivity. We weren’t challenging an institution; we were challenging an approach that kept fairness behind a paywall.
The students had not filed objections during the official window, and we knew that would be the first point of resistance. So before drafting even one paragraph, we took a step back and studied the rules, circulars, and fee structures of every major national-level examination body.
The contrast was clear: most charged ₹100 to ₹200 per objection. The ₹1,000 fee imposed here wasn’t just high; it was disproportionate and unexplained.
We built the petition around that. Around process, not personalities. Around access, not allegations.
Once filed under Article 226, our primary aim was straightforward: secure interim relief so that no selection or admission would be finalized until the case was heard fully.
This is where things became critical.
In exams like these, decisions move quickly. If seats are allotted and admissions proceed, even a valid correction becomes too late. We had to ask the Court to hold the process, just long enough for fairness to be examined.
In court, our submission was rooted in simple logic:
“If the objection fee itself is under challenge, it’s unfair to disqualify students for not paying it.”
We emphasized that these students weren’t late; they were priced out.
The bench considered this seriously. It wasn’t just a technical argument. It was about timing, notice, and opportunity. All pillars of administrative fairness.
When the Hon’ble High Court granted interim relief, it brought immediate balance to the situation. Any selections made would now be subject to the outcome of the case. That gave the process the breathing room it needed.
That stay was not a judgment. It was a safeguard.
It meant the process was still open to correction. It meant no student would be left behind just because they couldn’t pay to be heard.
Behind that one-line order was a team of researchers, drafters, students, and advocates who had come together with one belief: legal processes must be transparent and accessible.
It wasn’t a long-drawn trial. It wasn’t a historic judgment. But it was timely action that prevented future injustice.
Cases like this don’t always get noticed. But they matter. Because they say something deeper about how we design systems—and who gets left out when we don’t pay attention.
At Sushrut Joshi Law Clinic, we took up this petition not as a favour, but as a responsibility. Because every rule we let go unquestioned becomes a new barrier for the next generation.
We’ll continue to pursue this matter until it reaches its logical conclusion. But for now, that first relief stands; not just in the order sheets, but in the message it sends.
📍 Sushrut Joshi Law Clinic – Advocating Accessible Legal Process for All
If a system shuts you out without warning, don’t walk away. Let us help you open the right door, on time, with the law by your side.
