Allahabad High Court orders Consortium of NLUs to revise CLAT-2026 merit list

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday ordered the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list for Common Law Admission Test-2026 (CLAT-2026) after considering two answers as correct for a question [Avneesh Gupta (Minor) v Consortium of National Law Universities].

Justice Vivek Saran upheld the decision of an expert committee that had said two options are correct for the question, instead of one.

The expert's committee's decision had earlier been overturned by an oversight committee but the High Court said that the same was done without furnishing any reasons and hence, contrary to law.

“While overruling the decision of the said expert committee no reasons have been recorded for arriving at the conclusion, therefore the same is contrary to settled law,” the High Court ruled.

It added that the Consortium failed to bring on record the reasons for overruling the decision of the experts by the oversight committee.

“Although the respondent in their written submissions has tried to support the decision of the oversight committee by enclosing the reasons of the original paper setter, the same has not been filed on an affidavit and moreover once the expert committee has given its answer after going through the entire records then the view of the original paper setter are of no relevance,” the Court said.

The judgment was passed in the case of a candidate who appeared in an examination centre in Ghaziabad. The examination for the admission to 5- year LL.B was held in December 2025. The student had laid challenge to the answers of three questions. However, his objections were rejected by the NLU Consortium.

The candidate then moved the Court, arguing that due to incorrect evaluation, he got a lesser score and was placed lower in the merit list. In response, the Consortium said that Allahabad High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter as the Consortium is registered in the State of Karnataka.

However, the Court said that even for a small fraction of cause of action which takes place in the territorial limit of the High Court, it would be having jurisdiction to decide the matter.

“In such view of the matter, since the petitioner has appeared and participated in the entrance examination held by the respondent situated at District Ghaziabad, U.P., a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore this Court is having jurisdiction to decide the matter and the issue no. 1 is decided accordingly,” the Bench ruled.

On merits, the Court noted the settled law that the answers of such a competitive examination should be left to the wisdom of the experts.

Out of three answers, the Court found that the oversight committee, without any reasoning, had overruled the decision of the expert committee with respect to question no. 91 of booklet-A (corresponds to question no. 9 of booklet- C).

Thus, it quashed the same and sustained the answers of the expert committee. 

“In such view of the matter, the respondent/Consortium of National Law Universities is directed to revise the merit list by awarding marks against question no. 9 of booklet-C (corresponding to question no. 91 of booklet-A) and to all other questions which correspond to the same in different booklets of CLAT-2026 entrance examination by treating both ‘B’ and ‘D’ as correct answers,” the Court ordered.

Thereafter, the Consortium will revise the merit list and republish/re-notify the same within a period of one month, the Court directed. However, the Court also clarified that those given admissions after the first round of counselling shall not be disturbed.

“Since it has been informed at the Bar that the first round of counselling has already been finalised thus the students/candidates who have already taken admission pursuant to the first round of counselling shall not be disturbed, however for further counselling, the respondent are directed to act on the revised/re-notified merit list," the order said.

Advocate Atul Gupta appeared for the petitioner.

Senior Counsel Ashok Khare with advocate Avneesh Tripathi appeared for the respondent.

[Read Judgment]