Yet Another CLAT-Astrophe: Errors Galore In CLAT 2018!

The Common Law Admission Test (‘CLAT’), the entrance examination meant for admissions to National Law Universities (‘NLUs’), has run into rough weather yet again. This year’s CLAT, conducted by the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (‘NUALS’), was plagued by numerous technical glitches, leaving many aspirants with less than their entitled quota of 2 hours to complete the exam. Technical glitches aside, candidates from across the country allege that the exam was marred by poor infrastructure, incompetent invigilators, and cheating, among other problems. The enormity of the mismanagement could be gauged from the fact that up till now, petitions have been filed in as many as 6 different High Courts (see details of some of them here, here, and here) for quashing the examination and conducting a re-test. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, which is now seized of the matter, has directed the HCs not to pass any further orders in the CLAT petitions before them. As per the latest report, a grievance redressal body was formed to look into the grievances of the candidates and the body is expected to file its report before the SC.Nevertheless, reports of mismanagement hardly come as a surprise given that the exam has year after year come under the scanner for its failings, including errors in the question papers, arbitrary allocation of seats etc. In this regard, it bears noting that a public interest petition had been filed in 2015 by IDIA's founder, Prof. Shamnad Basheer, for resuscitating CLAT and placing it on a more competent institutional pedestal. This petition is now being pursued in the Supreme Court by a team of IDIA volunteers and a set of pro bono lawyers under the aegis of IDIA's P-PIL (public interest initiative).CLAT 2018: A Ghost from the PastOne of the major shortcomings of CLAT over the years has been the high share of errors in the question paper/answer key, along with a flawed grievance redressal mechanism to address these errors. This year’s CLAT is no different, with at least 19 dubious questions/answers being apparent on a preliminary analysis. The figure, based on an analysis of the initial answer key released by NUALS (‘Initial Key’), does not yield any specific pattern of errors, and is a result of a combination of factors, ranging from poor drafting to downright negligence. Although NUALS came out with an amended answer key after receiving feedback from the candidates (‘Amended Key’), at least 17 questions/answers still remain suspect. A list of all these questions and the errors has been meticulously drawn up by an IDIA team and can be found on the following link.Some of the questions give one the impression that absolutely no review or vetting has taken place before they were accepted as part of the final question paper.For instance, sample the following question, ostensibly meant to test the ‘logical reasoning’ of aspirants:“Q.115. In an interview for selection of two District Judges, four candidates, P, Q, R and S were shortlisted. All of them had 10 years standing as Lawyers. Who among them are most suitable? P – Very academic not much interested in litigation practice, very honest and impatient. Q – A patient listener, average in academics, thorough with Laws and sharp. R – Jovial, Patient, good academic records and actively involved in politics. S – Shrewd, Quick tempered, punctual and Published several Legal articlesOptions:1) P and Q2) Q and S3) R and S4) P and SThe answer for the above question as per the official answer key is option ‘2’, i.e., candidates ‘Q’ and ‘S’. Apart from the options being vaguely worded, it is obvious that there is no one correct answer to this question. At a more fundamental level, it is distressing to find such a subjective question in an apparently ‘objective’ test like CLAT in the first place. Moreover, given that this question appears in the ‘logical reasoning’ section of the paper and does not presume any prior knowledge on the aspirant’s part, the question should have at the least, elaborated the “principle”, which the aspirants are required to apply while solving it. Even though the issues with the question are axiomatic and need no hair-splitting, let’s break it down nevertheless.First of all, the given answer assumes that certain virtues are more desirable for a judge than others, despite these distinctions being not grounded on any fool-proof logic or fact. It also assumes that certain other comparable traits make one candidate less worthy of the position than the other. For instance, an assumption has been made that involvement in politics makes a candidate less qualified for the post despite being ‘patient’ and having a ‘good academic record’. Nevertheless, one would do well to remember that a) there is no such bar on candidates in the actual selection process, and 2) even assuming there is, being involved in ‘politics’ is not the same thing as being a ‘politician’ or being an active member of a political party. As per the Cambridge...

Yet Another CLAT-Astrophe: Errors Galore In CLAT 2018!

Team IDIA

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yet Another CLAT-Astrophe: Errors Galore In CLAT 2018!

Team IDIA

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers