Allahabad High Court Restores Final Answer Key, Sets Aside Single Judge Direction To Revise Merit List

In a major relief for CLAT aspirants, the Allahabad High Court has restored the final answer key of CLAT-UG 2026 and cancelled the earlier order that directed revision of the merit list.

The decision brings clarity and stability to the admission process for thousands of students seeking admission to National Law Universities (NLUs).

What Was the Dispute?

A CLAT candidate had challenged the final answer key for Questions 6, 9 and 13 of Set-C.

Earlier, a Single Judge of the High Court had:

• Directed the Consortium to treat both Options ‘B’ and ‘D’ as correct for Question No. 9
• Asked the Consortium to revise the merit list for future counselling rounds

This created uncertainty among candidates waiting for counselling and admissions.

What Did the Division Bench Decide?

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has now:

• Allowed the Consortium’s appeal
• Restored the original final answer key released on December 16, 2025
• Set aside the Single Judge’s order
• Dismissed the candidate’s connected appeal

Why Did the Court Support the Consortium?

The Court said the final answer key was prepared through a proper academic review process involving:

• Subject Expert Committees
• Oversight Committee
• Multiple levels of scrutiny

According to the Court:

• Academic experts are best suited to decide such issues
• Courts should interfere only when there is a clear and obvious error
• Judges cannot act like appellate authorities over expert opinions

Important Observation by the Court

The Bench specifically noted that:

• The Consortium’s answer to Question No. 9 was logically correct
• No “patent error” could be proved in the final answer key
• Even if two interpretations are possible, the expert body’s view should normally prevail

Supreme Court Judgments Relied Upon

The High Court relied on important Supreme Court decisions:

• Ran Vijay Singh v State of UP (2017)
• UPPSC v Rahul Singh (2018)

These judgments also emphasised limited judicial interference in academic evaluation matters.