A challenge raised by a CLAT 2026 candidate over disputed answers has led the Allahabad High Court to intervene in the examination process, flagging a serious lapse in how objections were handled. The court stopped short of re-evaluating the paper itself but firmly criticised the absence of reasons behind a key decision taken by the oversight panel.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Avneesh Gupta, a minor, who appeared in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2026 for admission to five-year law programmes at National Law Universities. He took the exam at the Ghaziabad centre on December 7, 2025.
Read also:- Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Complaint, Says Justice Demands Restoration of Dismissed Case
After the provisional answer key was released, Gupta objected to three questions related to logical reasoning. While the Consortium of National Law Universities invited objections and later published a final answer key, none of his concerns were accepted. Dissatisfied, Gupta approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that incorrect evaluation had lowered his score and affected his rank.
Jurisdiction Question Raised
At the very outset, the Consortium challenged the court’s territorial jurisdiction, saying all major decisions were taken in Karnataka where the Consortium is based.
The bench rejected this argument. Since the petitioner had taken the examination in Ghaziabad, a part of the cause of action arose within Uttar Pradesh. The court held that this was sufficient to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Read also:- Late Arbitration Award Can Survive: Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate
“The moment the candidate appeared for the examination within this State, a fraction of the cause of action arose here,” the bench observed.
Court’s View on Re-evaluation
On the larger issue of whether courts should interfere in exam evaluations, the judge reiterated settled law. Courts are not experts and must avoid stepping into academic assessments unless the error is obvious on the face of the record.
Quoting earlier Supreme Court rulings, the court noted that answer keys and evaluations are generally within the domain of subject experts, not judges.
The turning point came while examining one disputed question. The subject expert committee had clearly recorded that two options were correct for that question. However, the Oversight Committee overturned this finding and retained only one option - without recording any reasons.
The court found this deeply problematic.
“The oversight committee overruled the decision of the subject experts without assigning any reasons,” the bench noted, adding that such an approach violates basic principles of fairness and transparency.
Citing settled law, the judge remarked, “Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.”
The court also pointed out that even in the counter affidavit, the Consortium failed to explain why the expert opinion was rejected.
Decision of the Court
The High Court quashed the oversight committee’s decision on the disputed question and restored the expert committee’s view. It directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to:
- Treat both options ‘B’ and ‘D’ as correct for the concerned question across all CLAT 2026 booklets
- Revise and republish the merit list within one month
- Ensure that students already admitted through the first round of counselling are not disturbed
With these directions, the writ petition was partly allowed, and no costs were imposed.
Case Title: Avneesh Gupta (Minor) vs Consortium of National Law Universities
Case No.: Writ – C No. 45517 of 2025
Decision Date: 03 February 2026
