The Delhi High Court asked the Consortium of National Law Universities to present an overarching roadmap of the Common Law Admission Test conducted in regional languages as well as English. This decision follows a PIL brought forth by Sudhanshu Pathak, a law student, citing how the exclusive testing format of English creates an essential barrier between regional language education students and law educational access.

During the hearing, a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela accepted the validity of the petitioner’s argument. They said that though they were careful not to interfere with policy-making, the exclusivity of the English medium could not become a roadblock for aspirants whose primary medium of instruction is in regional languages. The court laid emphasis on phased and strategic approach to implementing regional languages in the examination instead of sudden change. The aim, they noted was to ensure that language does not bar access to premier legal education in India.

The PIL brought to light that the current format of CLAT, which acts as the entrance to 22 premier National Law Universities (NLUs) for undergraduate (LLB) and postgraduate (LLM) courses, has a severe bias against students who are not English-speaking. Pathak stated that the availability of the test in regional languages would promote greater accessibility and was consistent with the constitutional ideals of equality and access as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

The observations of the court echo the debates currently ongoing in relation to the requirement of multilingual options in national-level competitive exams. The National Testing Agency (NTA), in earlier affidavits submitted to the court, assured its capacity to conduct multilingual exams. Drawing from its experience with exams like NEET-UG and JEE, the NTA claimed to have a robust infrastructure that included a large pool of subject matter experts and translators, who could translate CLAT-UG question papers into major Indian languages like Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, and Urdu.

The court also highlighted the need for linguistic diversity in entrance exams without compromising on the standard of examination. It observed that other national-level tests, such as NEET and JEE, have successfully adopted multilingual formats, and the court used them as examples of how regional language options can coexist with the standard English format. This precedent, the court noted, underscores the feasibility of implementing a similar framework for CLAT.

Though the court did not make any immediate order to the Consortium, it stressed that the examination system should mirror India’s linguistic diversity. Such inclusivity, it emphasized, was necessary for a broader representation and accessibility in legal education, long criticized for being too English-centric.

The Consortium of NLUs has been given time to deliberate on the issue and submit a comprehensive plan for conducting CLAT in regional languages. The next date of hearing in the case has been fixed for March 18, and the Consortium would be able to present its case before the court and chart out a phased implementation strategy.

The court’s observations also come at a time when there is growing recognition of the need to bridge linguistic divides in higher education and professional training. The phased introduction of regional languages in entrance exams could potentially open doors for a wider pool of students and democratize access to premier institutions. However, the court cautioned against abrupt policy changes, emphasizing the importance of meticulous planning and stakeholder consultation to avoid logistical and operational challenges.

This order from the Delhi High Court takes another important step towards making legal education more accessible as the debate regarding the language of instruction and examination continues. It is for the Consortium of NLUs now to balance the requirement of operational feasibility with the need for fostering diversity and accessibility while paving the way for some potential transformative reforms in the legal education system.