In the grand theatre of Indian legal education, the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and the All India Law Entrance Test (AILET) have emerged as the gatekeepers to esteemed halls of legal learning. Yet, as the CLAT nears its quindecinnial, marred by a series of challenges and inconsistencies, its credibility wanes. The AILET, while prestigious, shares a similarly flawed...
In the grand theatre of Indian legal education, the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and the All India Law Entrance Test (AILET) have emerged as the gatekeepers to esteemed halls of legal learning. Yet, as the CLAT nears its quindecinnial, marred by a series of challenges and inconsistencies, its credibility wanes. The AILET, while prestigious, shares a similarly flawed lineage.
Issues with CLAT and AILET Exams Over the Years
| Year | Change/Mistake | Exam(s) Affected | Description |
| 2008 | - | Both | Introduction of CLAT; AILET also begins around this period. |
| 2009 | Pattern Change | CLAT | First major pattern change right after the inaugural exam. |
| 2012 | Not Following Pattern | CLAT | 50 questions not as per the given pattern. |
| 2013 | Introduction of Negative Marking | CLAT | Changed the exam pattern to include negative marking. |
| 2015 | Switch to CBT Mode | CLAT | Changed from paper-based to computer-based testing. |
| 2018 | Founding of CNLU Consortium | CLAT | Supposed to improve the exam process but had mixed effects. |
| 2019 | Switch to Offline Mode | CLAT | Shifted back to paper-based due to CBT issues. |
| 2020 | Pattern and Mode Changes | CLAT | Multiple changes in a short timeframe, including a switch back to online. |
| 2021 | Switch to Offline Mode Again | CLAT | Shifted back to paper-based after issues with CBT. |
| 2022 | Pattern Change | AILET | Changed exam pattern six months before the exam. |
| 2023 | Exam Timing Changed to December | CLAT | Moved from traditional May/June to December. |
| 2024 | Pattern and Timing Changes | Both | Multiple changes announced within months of the scheduled exams. |
The saga unfolds with frequent, unpredictable shifts in exam patterns, modes, and formats. The CLAT, particularly, has witnessed seven metamorphoses in the past 15 years, introducing a climate of uncertainty. For instance, the introduction of negative marking in 2013 and the oscillation between online and offline modes highlight a disconcerting instability. AILET's narrative is parallel, marked by its own abrupt changes.
These deviations from promised formats betray a breach of trust, disadvantaging those who prepare meticulously. The 2024 CLAT saw 40 out of 120 questions deviating from the pattern, undermining the meritocratic foundation of the exam. Such practices not only erode aspirants' confidence but also contravene the principle of fairness.
Transparency, once a pillar of these exams, has eroded over time. The shift away from publishing detailed rank lists and candidates' details after 2020 veils the outcomes in secrecy, contradicting the adage that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. This opaqueness raises significant accountability questions.
The Consortium's turn towards commercialization, particularly the monetization of candidate data, strikes a discordant note. This commercial bent stands in stark contrast to the practices of national bodies like the NTA, which maintains openness without compromising privacy.
Furthermore, the integrity of the examination process is questioned through practices compromising candidate anonymity. For example, AILET 2021 and 2024 required candidates to write their names on OMR sheets, an egregious oversight that flouts the principle of impartial assessment.
Ambiguities shroud the examination process, especially concerning the number of aspirants. The CLAT 2024 witnessed a reported 24.5% increase in applications, a figure that puzzles when disaggregated into 34.7% more undergraduate and 25.8% more postgraduate applications, revealing a mathematical incongruence.
Adjustments to examination timings, purportedly for students' mental health, inadvertently conflict with academic schedules, highlighting a lack of consideration for aspirants' broader educational contexts.
At its core, the linguistic exclusivity of these exams reveals a deeper elitism. The sole use of English not only disadvantages candidates from diverse linguistic backgrounds but also reflects an urban-centric bias. This approach to language and inclusivity demands urgent reevaluation.
In reflection, the narrative of CLAT and AILET, as witnessed over a decade, uncovers a landscape riddled with inconsistency, opacity, and exclusion. These issues not only tarnish the fairness and credibility of the examination process but also challenge the legal profession's foundational principles. With a heart heavy yet hopeful, I advocate for a reimagined approach to legal education entrance examinations, championing transparency, inclusivity, and fairness.
Views are personal.