In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has mandated a revision of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) UG 2026 merit list, addressing a contentious dispute over the exam's answer key. This ruling came during a hearing on a petition filed by a minor candidate who contested the evaluation of specific questions, highlighting procedural lapses in the assessment process.
Court's Intervention in CLAT Evaluation Process
The bench of Justice Vivek Saran issued this significant order on Tuesday, following a detailed examination of the case. The court found that the Oversight Committee had overruled recommendations from an Expert Committee, which comprised subject matter specialists, without providing any justification. This oversight prompted judicial intervention to ensure fairness and transparency in the competitive examination process.
Petitioner's Grievances and Legal Challenge
The petitioner, a law aspirant who took the CLAT UG exam on December 7 last year in Ghaziabad, challenged the evaluation of three questions from Test Booklet C. These questions corresponded to numbers 88, 91, and 95 in Master Booklet-A. According to the candidate, his answers were correct but were improperly assessed, leading to a lower score and a diminished position in the merit list.
Despite submitting detailed objections through the official online portal and paying the requisite fee, the final answer key reflected no changes. Consequently, the petitioner argued that this incorrect evaluation denied him admission to his preferred law institute, even though he was shortlisted for counseling.
Court's Observations and Rationale
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court emphasized the authority of the Expert Committee. "The Expert Committee has thoroughly reviewed the objections and provided its expert opinions, which in the court's view require no alteration," the bench noted. However, it pointed out a critical flaw: for question number 9 of Booklet C (equivalent to question 91 in Booklet A), the Oversight Committee overruled the Expert Committee's decision without recording any reasons.
The court underscored that the Expert Committee consisted of subject experts, whereas the Oversight Committee included former high dignitaries. "Overruling the Expert Committee's decision without documented reasons contradicts established legal principles," the order stated. It further dismissed attempts by the Consortium of National Law Universities to justify the Oversight Committee's actions with unverified submissions from the original paper setter, deeming them irrelevant once the Expert Committee had issued its findings.
Specific Directives Issued by the Court
In its ruling, the court quashed the Oversight Committee's decision regarding the disputed question and upheld the Expert Committee's answers. It directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to take the following actions:
- Revise the merit list by awarding marks for question number 9 of Booklet C and all corresponding questions in different booklets, treating both options 'B' and 'D' as correct.
- Republish or re-notify the revised merit list within one month from the order date.
- Ensure that students who have already secured admissions in the first counseling round are not affected, while using the updated list for subsequent counseling sessions.
This directive aims to rectify the evaluation errors and restore integrity to the CLAT UG 2026 admission process, ensuring that all candidates are assessed fairly based on expert recommendations.
