Concerns have been raised over alleged discrepancies in the evaluation of the Law Clerk-cum-Research Associates Examination conducted by the Supreme Court of India, with multiple candidates pointing to significant variations between marks calculated using the official answer key and those reflected in final scorecards.

Several candidates have claimed that their scores, when computed on the basis of the published answer key, are substantially higher than the marks ultimately awarded, in some instances falling below the qualifying threshold in the final results.

According to representations received, discrepancies of up to 30 marks have been alleged, with candidates claiming that scores in the 70–80 range have been reflected in the 40–50 range in official scorecards. The issue assumes importance as the recruitment process requires candidates to secure a minimum of 60% in Part I (objective section) for their Part II (subjective paper) to be evaluated.

One candidate, who requested anonymity, stated that the calculated score based on the answer key stood at over 70 marks after accounting for negative marking and grace marks, but the final scorecard reflected approximately 45 marks, resulting in disqualification from further stages of the process. Similar concerns have reportedly been raised by other candidates.

It has further been indicated that, owing to such variations, several candidates may not have had their Part II answer sheets evaluated, as they were shown to have fallen short of the qualifying threshold based on the published results.

At present, it remains unclear whether the alleged discrepancies arise from differences in evaluation methodology, normalisation processes, or potential clerical or technical errors. There has been no official clarification from the authorities regarding the concerns raised.

The issue is likely to attract closer scrutiny given the high-stakes nature of the recruitment process and its role in judicial functioning. Observers note that transparency and consistency in evaluation are critical to maintaining confidence in competitive examinations conducted by constitutional institutions.

This is a developing story, and it has further come to light through representations made by candidates, who have requested anonymity, that there may have been wider inconsistencies in the calculation of marks and preparation of results, allegedly leading to disqualification of a significant number of candidates. The Bar Bulletin Team has tried to reach out to the Secretary General however, we have received no comments as of now.