PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has overturned a single-judge order that had directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) UG 2026. A division bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi restored the final answer key issued by the Consortium on December 16, 2025, after objections were reviewed by expert committees, according to news agency PTI.
Court's Observations on Academic Matters
Allowing the Consortium’s appeal, the bench observed that courts cannot function as appellate authorities over decisions taken by subject experts in academic matters. The case stemmed from a writ petition filed by a CLAT UG candidate challenging the final answer key for Question Nos. 6, 9 and 13 of Set-C. According to news agency PTI, on February 3, the single judge had partly allowed the plea and directed the Consortium to release a revised merit list for the subsequent counselling rounds.
Multi-Layered Review Process
However, the division bench held that the final answer key was prepared after a detailed multi-layered review process involving subject experts and an oversight committee. In its judgment delivered on Friday, the bench said, “Such an exercise by experts in the related field establishes a strong presumption of correctness, particularly in academic matters, unless a clear and demonstrable error is established.”
The decision underscores the judiciary's respect for expert academic bodies and the importance of maintaining the integrity of competitive examination processes. The division bench's ruling effectively nullifies the earlier directive, ensuring that the original merit list based on the final answer key remains unchanged.
This development brings clarity to the CLAT UG 2026 admission process, which had been clouded by legal challenges. The Consortium of National Law Universities had argued that the single-judge order interfered with the expert-driven evaluation process, and the division bench agreed, emphasizing that courts should defer to academic experts in such matters.
