CLAT 2026 | Allahabad HC decision may reopen a can of worms

On 3 February, a Single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court ordered the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list for the Common Law Admission Test UG 2026 exam. This follows a petition from a candidate who alleged that the Consortium did not consider his objections to three questions when it published the final answer key. The candidate argued that his lower rank adversely affected his chances of securing admission to his preferred law school

Allahabad High Court questions Oversight Committee

The Consortium contested the petition, arguing that because its headquarters are located in Karnataka, the Allahabad High Court lacked jurisdiction. However, the High Court rejected this contention, noting that since the Consortium conducted the examination in Ghaziabad, it had authority to hear the plea.

The next issue was whether the Allahabad High Court had the authority to review the question on merits at all. The Consortium cited In Re. Ran Vijay Singh v State of U.P. to argue that “Court should not venture into the correctness of a question which are in exclusive domain of the Experts”. While the High Court agreed that technical answers generally belong to the “wisdom of experts,” it identified a procedural infirmity.

Initially, an Expert Committee ruled that both Options ‘B’ and ‘D’ were correct answers to Question 91 of Booklet-A. However, an Oversight Committee later overruled this finding without recording any reasons. The Court noted the absence of any justification for the reversal.

The High Court quashed the decision of the Oversight Committee and directed that both options ‘B’ and ‘D’ be treated as correct. Accordingly, the Consortium was directed to revise the merit list across all booklets. The Judgement clarified that admissions already finalised in the first round of counselling will not be affected. The Consortium was directed to “act on the revised/re-notified merit list” for any further counselling. 

What has the Supreme Court said? 

Last year, the Supreme Court in Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v Consortium of National Law Universities (2025), stated that the Consortium conducted the examination in a “casual manner”. 

The Bench, then led by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, had remarked that while the Court should restrain itself from intervening in academic matters, it has no alternative but to interfere when “the academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely affects the career aspirations of lakhs of students…”. In that case, the Court examined six questions that were challenged by candidates. It had granted two weeks to the Consortium to “revise the marksheet and re-publish/notify the final list of candidates.” 

The Bench had suggested that there be a “permanent mechanism” for conducting the exam, similar to how the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET) for medical admissions is conducted. Currently, CLAT is conducted by member universities on a rotational basis. The CJI-Gavai Judgement had taken note of a Committee set up by the Court to look into the shortcomings of CLAT 2018, whose report has since been received by the Court. 

Separately, the Consortium has set up an Expert Committee led by Justice Indu Malhotra to review the CLAT 2027 examinations. The Expert Committee will “suggest medium and long-term reforms to the UG and PG Common Law Admission Test”. The call for suggestions to the Expert Committee closed in November 2025.