The Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking a court-monitored investigation into the alleged leak of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2026 question paper. The Court primarily cited the petitioners' delay in approaching the judiciary as the ground for dismissal, noting that the examination process had already concluded.
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the plea filed by a group of law aspirants (Lalit Pratap Singh & Ors v. Consortium of National Law Universities).
The Bench’s refusal to entertain the plea hinged on the timing of the petition relative to the alleged leak and the examination schedule.
- The Court's Query: The Justices questioned why the petitioners, who claimed the leak occurred on December 6, 2025 (the night before the exam), waited until December 16, 2025, to file the petition.
- Judicial Remark: "You say on December 6, it was leaked. Why did you wait till 16th December to file? Before declaration of results, we would have appreciated," the Bench observed.
Advocate Malvika Kapila, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the petition was filed within a reasonable timeframe and clarified that they were not seeking a re-conduct of the exam, but rather an independent probe. However, the Bench remained unconvinced, declining to intervene at this stage.
The plea, filed by aspirants from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, presented serious allegations regarding the sanctity of the national-level entrance test:
- Digital Evidence: The petitioners cited videos, images, and screenshots circulating on platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp. These materials purportedly showed the question paper and answer key being shared as early as 10:15 PM on December 6, nearly 15 hours before the exam.
- Timestamps: The petition emphasized that Telegram messages bearing these timestamps did not have "edited" tags, suggesting they were authentic pre-exam uploads.
- "Paid Access": Screenshots allegedly showed offers to sell the paper in exchange for payment.
The exam, organized by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs), was held on December 7, 2025, across 156 centers. Over 92,000 students competed for approximately 5,000 seats in undergraduate and postgraduate law programs.
The petitioners argued that the alleged leak disadvantaged genuine candidates and that the Consortium's internal grievance redressal mechanism—headed by former Supreme Court Justice M.R. Shah—had failed to provide transparency or release an inquiry report. With counselling scheduled to begin on January 7, the petitioners contended that proceeding with the results would cause irreversible harm.
This dismissal underscores a critical procedural hurdle in public interest litigation regarding exams: vigilance vs. delay. The Supreme Court's stance suggests that when allegations of a leak arise before an exam, the judiciary expects immediate action from aggrieved parties—ideally prior to the declaration of results. Once the results are out and the admissions machinery is in motion, courts are generally reluctant to stall the process unless the evidence is overwhelming and the petition is timely. For future aspirants, this serves as a precedent: legal challenges to exam integrity must be swift to be effective.
Case Title: Lalit Pratap Singh & Ors v. Consortium of National Law Universities Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe