In Consortium of National Law Universities v. Avneesh Gupta (Minor), the Allahabad High Court has restored the original CLAT UG 2026 merit list and final answer key, setting aside an earlier single-judge order that had directed the Consortium of NLUs to revise the results.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held that courts should exercise restraint in academic matters, especially when expert bodies have already reviewed the disputed issues through a structured process.
The case arose after a CLAT 2026 candidate challenged the evaluation of certain questions in the examination conducted in December 2025 for admissions to five-year law programmes at National Law Universities across India.
The student had objected to the answers of three questions. However, the Consortium rejected those objections after review by expert committees. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the candidate approached the Allahabad High Court claiming that incorrect evaluation had reduced his marks and affected his rank.
In February 2026, a single judge partly accepted the plea. The Court had upheld the finding of an expert committee that two options could be treated as correct for one particular question. Based on that reasoning, the Consortium was directed to revise and republish the merit list within one month.
The Consortium of National Law Universities then challenged that order before the Division Bench. It argued that the final answer key had already undergone a rigorous two-stage review involving subject experts and an Oversight Committee.
The High Court accepted the Consortium’s submissions and observed that the process adopted for finalising the answer key reflected proper academic scrutiny.
“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,” the Court observed.
The Bench further stressed that courts should not replace the opinion of academic experts with their own interpretation unless there is a clear and obvious error.
“The settled position of law makes it clear that courts must refrain from substituting their own opinion in place of that of subject experts,” the Court said.
After examining the disputed questions, the Division Bench found that the answers adopted by the Consortium were based on a reasonable academic interpretation and did not contain any “manifest error” requiring judicial intervention.
The Court ultimately ruled that the single-judge’s interference, though well-intentioned, was not legally sustainable within the settled limits of judicial review in examination matters.
As a result, the original CLAT UG 2026 evaluation process and merit list now stand restored.
——————————————–
Have a case update, article, or deal to share? Courtroom Today welcomes contributions from lawyers, law firms, and legal professionals. Write to contact@courtroomtoday.com
