Allahabad High Court overturns single-judge order to revise CLAT 2026 merit list

The Allahabad High Court on Friday set aside a single-judge’s direction to revise the CLAT-2026 merit list, holding that no interference was warranted with the final answer key prepared by the Consortium of National Law Universities. [Consortium of National Law Universities v Avneesh Gupta (Minor)]

A Division Bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi restored the original evaluation and results of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT-2026).

The Court noted that the answer key had gone through several layers of expert review.

"The institutional mechanism adopted by the Consortium, involving subject experts and an Oversight Committee, reflects a structured and reasoned approach to finalisation of the answer key. Such determinations, having been arrived at after due academic scrutiny, ought not to be unsettled in the absence of compelling and demonstrable error," the order said.

The single-judge verdict was passed on February 3 in the case of a candidate who appeared in an examination centre in Ghaziabad.

The examination for the admission to 5- year-LL.B courses in National Law Universities across India 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 High Court, arguing that due to incorrect evaluation, he got lesser score and was placed lower in the merit list.

A single-judge of the High Court upheld the decision of an expert committee that had said two options were correct for one of the questions, instead of one.

In view of this, the single-judge directed the NLU Consortium to revise the merit list and republish/re-notify the same within a period of one month.

The NLU Consortium challenged the same before Division Bench.

The Consortium argued that the answer key had undergone a rigorous two-tier review by subject experts and an oversight committee. It contended that courts should not substitute their own judgment in academic matters.

The candidate, on the other hand, contended that errors persisted in multiple questions and warranted broader relief.

After examining the disputed questions, the Division Bench found that the answers adopted by the NLU Consortium were reasonable and based on plausible academic interpretation. It held that none of the answers suffered from a “manifest error” that would justify judicial interference.

“The settled position of law makes it clear that courts must refrain from substituting their own opinion in place of that of subject experts. Even where two views are possible, the view taken by the final academic authority must ordinarily prevail, provided it is a plausible view based on academic reasoning,” said the Court.

Hence, it set aside the reasoning adopted by the single-judge and ruled that intervention in the evaluation process was not legally sustainable.

“In that view of the matter, the interference by the learned Single Judge, though well-intentioned, does not align with the settled parameters governing judicial review in academic matters," the Court ruled.

The Bench reiterated that the scope of judicial review in examination matters is limited and courts should intervene only in rare cases where errors are apparent on the face of the record.

Since the answer key had been finalised after due expert scrutiny, the Court refused to interfere with the results.

Hence, the direction to revise the merit list was quashed.

Advocate Atul Gupta appeared for the student.

Senior Counsel Ashok Khare with advocate Avneesh Tripathi appeared for the Consortium of National Law Universities.

[Read Order]