Law Clerk Exam Discrepancy: Supreme Court Recruitment Cell Orders Correction

The Supreme Court of India Recruitment Cell has addressed concerns in the Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate examination after candidates reported discrepancies in their results. The issue relates to the evaluation of Part-I of the examination, which is a crucial screening stage.

According to an official notice, the agency responsible for conducting the examination has acknowledged an error in assessing the Part-I paper. It has requested 72 hours to correct the mistakes and update the results accordingly.

The Law Clerk recruitment process for 2026 aims to fill around 90 positions on a contractual basis for the 2026–2027 term. The written examination, held on March 7, forms part of a multi-stage selection process including objective and subjective tests, followed by interviews.

Part-I of the examination consists of objective questions designed to test candidates’ legal knowledge and comprehension. It plays a key role in shortlisting candidates for the next stages, making accuracy in evaluation especially important.

The issue surfaced after the results were declared on April 20. Several candidates took to social media, claiming that the marks reflected in their scorecards did not match their own calculations based on the official answer key.

Many candidates stated that their expected scores were significantly higher than what was awarded. This raised concerns about possible errors in the evaluation process, prompting the Recruitment Cell to take immediate notice.

The official communication does not detail the exact nature of the error. However, the acknowledgment by the evaluating agency indicates that the discrepancy is not isolated and requires system-level correction.

The examination process was conducted through the DigiAlm platform, operated by Tata Consultancy Services under its TCS iON system. Despite this, the notice does not explicitly name the agency responsible for the mistake.

The Recruitment Cell’s assurance of rectification within 72 hours provides some relief to candidates awaiting clarity. The updated results are expected to determine eligibility for the subsequent stages of the selection process.

This development highlights the importance of accuracy and transparency in competitive examinations, especially those conducted for positions within the judiciary. The coming days will be crucial for candidates as they await revised scorecards.