MUMBAI, July 13 -- The Bombay High Court recently directed the State Common Entrance Test (CET) cell to file an affidavit in reply to a petition filed by an LLB aspirant complaining that in the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test for the 3-year LLB program (MAH-LLB-3Y-CET) 2025 examination, several objective-type questions had multiple correct answers when the candidates were supposed to choose one. The candidate, Shashivadana Shetty, a Malad resident, raised objections to one of the questions (Which one of the four options given in the question was a communicable disease?) that had four options (A. tuberculosis B. diabetes C. influenza D. hepatitis). According to the State CET cell, option C (influenza) was the correct answer. But, she pointed out, according to global medical authorities, tuberculosis and hepatitis B are also communicable diseases. Shetty claimed she had marked option A (tuberculosis) as her answer to the question as it is a highly infectious, airborne disease, which spreads when infected individuals cough, sneeze, or spit, making it a critical public health concern, she said that the question had multiple correct answers, which rendered it defective. After the declaration of results on May 30, Shetty paid a requisite fee of Rs.1,000 and filed an objection on the State CET portal to this question. She stated that she had submitted scientific references supporting her claim, including publications from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information and Merriam-Webster. When the CET cell published the list of objections on June 13, Shetty's objection was not in it. She sent an e-mail to the State CET cell but did not receive any reply. She then visited the CET cell office in person with a notice. She was told here that she may approach the High Court. In the high court, the CET cell maintained that the petitioner's remedy was to approach the committee constituted for resolving such objections. The division bench of Justice MS Karnik and Justice NR Borkar observed that at least 16 students, including Shetty, had raised objections to various questions with multiple correct answers in the options. However, as the committee had rejected them, there was no point in asking the petitioner to file an objection with the committee again. The court ordered CET Cell's advocate, Sameer Khedekar, and additional government pleader Kavita N Solunke, to file their affidavits in a week. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 16....