2026 CLAT-UG | One Question, Two Correct Answers: Why Allahabad High Court Ordered Revision Of Merit List For Future Counselling?

In a significant order passed on Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list for CLAT-UG-2026.The order was passed after a single judge found that the high-powered 'Oversight Committee' had arbitrarily overruled subject matter experts regarding a disputed question without assigning any reasons for the same. A bench of Justice Vivek Saran has ordered the Consortium to treat two options ('B' & 'D') as correct for the disputed Question No. 9 (in Booklet-C) and to all other questions which correspond to the same in different booklets of CLAT-2026 entrance examination and republish the merit list within one month. With this, the bench partly allowed the writ petition filed by a minor candidate, Avneesh Gupta. It added that the "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is incongruous with judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Briefly put, the CLAT-2026 was held on December 7, 2025. The petitioner, who took the test, moved the HC challenging the answer key for Question Nos. 6, 9, and 13 of Test Booklet-C (corresponding to Questions 88, 91 and 95 of Master Booklet-A). While the Court refused to interfere with Questions 6 and 13, the bench found merit regarding the challenge to Question No. 9, a Logical Reasoning question. The Court noted that the Oversight Committee had overruled the decision of the Expert Committee and had retained the correct option as answer 'B' for the aforesaid question without assigning any reasons. This was done despite the Subject Expert Committee (comprising a Professor of Logic and Philosophy and an Assistant Professor of Economics) accepting the objection and concluding that both options 'B' and 'D' were correct. Taking into account the minutes of the meeting, Justice Saran opined that in the absence of any reason being given for overruling the decision of the Expert Committee by the Oversight Committee with respect to the question under challenge, the same was liable to be quashed and the answers of the Expert Committee were required to be sustained. In this regard, the single judge referred to the Supreme Court's landmark verdicts in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, 2008, and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, 2004, and held that even administrative orders must be supported by reasons to link the decision-maker's mind to the conclusion. "In the last page of the report, details of the members of the Expert Committee are disclosed... who are experts in the field whereas the members of the Oversight Committees are past high dignitaries. As while overruling the decision of the said Expert Committee no reasons have been recorded for arriving at the conclusion, therefore the same is contrary to settled law," the Court observed. Importantly, before addressing the petition on merits, the Court dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the Consortium. Essentially, the Consortium had argued that the Allahabad High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, as the Consortium is registered in Karnataka and had carried out all procedures in that state. Rejecting this contention, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India 2004 to note that since the petitioner had appeared and participated in the entrance examination at District Ghaziabad, UP, a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the HC and therefore, it has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Notably, while ordering the revision of the merit list, the Court was mindful of the students who have already secured admissions. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Disha Panchal vs. Union of India 2018, Justice Saran clarified that while revising the merit list, the first round of counselling, which has already been finalised, shall not be disturbed. "The respondent/Consortium of National Law Universities is directed to revise the merit list by awarding marks against question no. 9 of booklet-C...by treating both 'B' and 'D' as correct answers...Since it has been informed at the Bar that the first round of counselling has already been finalized thus the students/candidates who have already taken admission pursuant to the first round of counselling shall not be disturbed," the Order read.In essence, the Consortium has been directed to recalculate marks for all candidates by treating both 'B' and 'D' as correct for the disputed question and republish the merit list within one month and use this revised merit list for all subsequent rounds of counselling. The Petitioner appeared in person. The Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, assisted by Advocate Avneesh Tripathi. Case title - Avneesh Gupta (Minor) vs. Consortium of National Law Universities 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55 Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55 Click Here To Read/Download Order

2026 CLAT-UG | One Question, Two Correct Answers: Why Allahabad High Court Ordered Revision Of Merit List For Future Counselling?

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags