In a significant development that could reshape the admission landscape for National Law Universities (NLUs) this year, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) UG 2026. The judgment, delivered by Justice Vivek Saran, comes as a major relief to thousands of students who felt aggrieved by the evaluation of certain disputed questions in the logical reasoning section.

The matter reached the High Court through a writ petition filed by Avneesh Gupta, a minor appearing in person through his natural guardian. The petitioner challenged the answers to three specific questions (Questions 6, 9, and 13 of Booklet-C, corresponding to Questions 88, 91, and 95 of the Master Booklet-A).

The petitioner argued that despite filing detailed objections and paying the requisite fees, the Consortium’s final answer key did not reflect the correct academic position. The most striking part of the case involved Question No. 91 (Booklet-A). During the proceedings, it was revealed that while the specialized "Subject Expert Committee" had concluded that both options ‘B’ and ‘D’ were correct, a higher "Oversight Committee" had overruled them, sticking only to option ‘B’ without providing any justification.

While the Consortium, represented by Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, argued that courts should stay away from academic matters and expert opinions, the High Court identified a "procedural infirmity."

Justice Vivek Saran noted that the Oversight Committee had acted arbitrarily by dismissing the findings of the subject experts. The court observed:

"In the absence of any reason being given for overruling the decision of the Expert Committee by the Oversight Committee... the same is hereby quashed and the answers of the Expert Committee are sustained."

The Court emphasized that while it is not an expert in logical reasoning, it is definitely an expert in ensuring that bodies like the Consortium follow a fair and transparent process. By ignoring its own experts without a valid reason, the Consortium had acted in a way that unfairly penalized students who had marked the equally correct option 'D'.

Key Directions Issued by the Court

The judgment (Case Title: Avneesh Gupta (Minor) v. Consortium of National Law Universities) carries several vital directions:

Revised Marks: The Consortium must award marks for Question No. 9 of Booklet-C (Q. 91 of Booklet-A) to all candidates who chose either Option ‘B’ or Option ‘D’.
Merit List Update: A revised merit list must be republished/re-notified within one month from the date of the judgment (February 3, 2026).
Protection of Existing Admissions: To avoid chaos, the Court clarified that students who have already secured admission in the first round of counselling will not be disturbed.
Future Counselling: For all subsequent rounds of counselling (including the third merit list due shortly), the Consortium must strictly follow the revised merit list.

This ruling is expected to trigger a "domino effect" on the rankings. Even a shift of 1 mark can lead to a jump or drop of hundreds of ranks in a high-stakes exam like CLAT. Students who were previously on the edge of getting into a top-tier NLU like NLSIU Bangalore or NALSAR Hyderabad might now see their dreams realized, while others might see their relative rankings shift.

The Consortium has recently been under fire, with separate petitions in the Supreme Court alleging paper leaks and seeking an independent probe. This High Court order adds another layer of complexity to the 2026 admission cycle, which critics are already calling "one of the most turbulent in recent history."

Legal experts suggest that while the judgment ensures "substantive justice" for the petitioner, the timing is delicate. With the third allotment list scheduled for February 5, 2026, the Consortium faces a race against time to implement the court's orders without stalling the entire admission calendar.

The decision reinforces a growing judicial trend in India: while academic bodies have the final word on "what" the answer is, the Judiciary will intervene if the "how" (the process of deciding the answer) is flawed, opaque, or arbitrary.

For the thousands of aspirants awaiting the next rounds of NLU allotments, this judgment is a reminder that the path to justice is open even in the face of powerful institutional bodies. The Consortium of NLUs is now expected to act swiftly to comply with the High Court’s mandate, ensuring that the CLAT 2026 merit list truly reflects the merit of its candidates.