In an important judgment impacting law aspirants across the country, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to revise and re-notify the CLAT-2026 merit list after holding that two answer options were correct for a disputed question, contrary to the Consortium’s final answer key.
The Court also rejected the objection raised by the Consortium regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that even a fraction of the cause of action arising within Uttar Pradesh was sufficient for the High Court to entertain the petition.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Vivek Saran in Avneesh Gupta (Minor) v. Consortium of National Law Universities.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was a candidate who appeared for the CLAT-2026 examination at a centre located in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, for admission to the five-year LL.B programme. The examination was conducted in December 2025.
After the declaration of results, the candidate raised objections to the answers of three questions, contending that incorrect evaluation had resulted in a lower score and a reduced position in the merit list. These objections were rejected by the Consortium of NLUs.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the candidate approached the Allahabad High Court seeking judicial review of the evaluation process.
Consortium’s Objection on Territorial Jurisdiction
At the threshold, the Consortium argued that the Allahabad High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter since the Consortium is registered in Karnataka and its administrative decisions are taken there.
Rejecting this contention, the Court reiterated the settled principle that even a small part of the cause of action is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Vivek Saran held that since the petitioner had appeared and participated in the examination at Ghaziabad, a part of the cause of action arose within Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the Allahabad High Court was competent to adjudicate the dispute.
This clarification is significant for students across India who often face jurisdictional hurdles while challenging national-level entrance examinations.
Dispute Over Expert Committee and Oversight Committee Decisions
On merits, the Court examined the evaluation process adopted by the Consortium. The issue centred around Question No. 91 of Booklet-A, corresponding to Question No. 9 of Booklet-C.
Initially, an expert committee constituted by the Consortium concluded that two answer options were correct for the disputed question. However, this finding was later overturned by an oversight committee, which treated only one option as correct.
The High Court found fault with this reversal.
Lack of Reasons Held Contrary to Law
Justice Vivek Saran noted that while the oversight committee had overturned the expert committee’s conclusion, it had failed to record any reasons for doing so.
The Court observed that:
- Recording of reasons is a fundamental requirement of administrative decision-making.
- An unreasoned decision is arbitrary and violates settled principles of law.
- Expert committee opinions cannot be discarded casually or mechanically.
The Court further held that attempts made during written submissions to justify the oversight committee’s decision by referring to the original paper setter’s views were legally untenable.
Once an expert committee has examined the issue after reviewing all relevant material, the personal opinion of the original paper setter becomes irrelevant, the Court clarified.
Judicial Deference to Experts—With Limits
While reiterating that courts should ordinarily defer to the wisdom of subject experts in competitive examinations, the High Court emphasised that such deference is not absolute.
Judicial intervention becomes necessary when:
- Expert findings are overturned without reasons;
- The process suffers from arbitrariness;
- Candidates are prejudiced due to procedural irregularities.
In the present case, the Court found that the oversight committee’s action lacked transparency and violated principles of fairness.
Directions Issued by the High Court
Allowing the petition in part, the Allahabad High Court issued the following directions:
- The decision of the oversight committee overruling the expert committee’s view was quashed.
- The Consortium was directed to treat both ‘B’ and ‘D’ as correct answers for the disputed question.
- Marks were to be awarded accordingly to all candidates across different CLAT-2026 booklets where the corresponding question appeared.
- The Consortium was directed to revise and re-publish the CLAT-2026 merit list within one month.
Protection to Students Already Admitted
Importantly, the Court balanced individual relief with institutional stability by clarifying that:
- Admissions already granted after the first round of counselling shall not be disturbed.
- The revised merit list would apply only to subsequent rounds of counselling.
This ensured that students who had already secured admissions would not face uncertainty due to the revised rankings.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
The ruling has far-reaching implications for entrance examinations and administrative decision-making:
1. Reinforcement of Reasoned Decisions
Administrative bodies must record reasons, especially when overturning expert opinions.
2. Jurisdiction Clarified for National Exams
Candidates can approach courts where any part of the cause of action arises, including examination centres.
3. Accountability of Exam Authorities
Oversight mechanisms cannot function arbitrarily under the guise of finality.
4. Fairness in Competitive Examinations
The judgment strengthens the rights of candidates against opaque evaluation processes.
Impact on CLAT Aspirants and NLUs
For CLAT aspirants, the decision reinforces confidence in judicial oversight over high-stakes entrance examinations. For the Consortium of NLUs, it serves as a reminder that procedural transparency and expert-driven decision-making are indipensable.
The ruling may also influence how future objections, answer key challenges, and review mechanisms are structured for CLAT and similar national examinations.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s direction to revise the CLAT-2026 merit list underscores the principle that fairness, reasoned decision-making, and expert integrity are central to competitive examinations. By correcting an unreasoned administrative override while safeguarding existing admissions, the Court has struck a careful balance between individual justice and systemic stability.
The judgment stands as an important precedent for students challenging entrance examination irregularities and for authorities tasked with conducting such examinations in a transparent and accountable manner.
Also Read
