{"id":383829,"date":"2026-05-12T10:00:43","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T04:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=383829"},"modified":"2026-05-12T10:04:15","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T04:34:15","slug":"clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/","title":{"rendered":"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer:<\/span> This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Allahabad High Court:<\/span> In a set of appeals filed against the Single Judge’s decision directing revision of the CLAT UG 2026 merit list, the Division Bench of Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi<\/span>*, JJ., allowed the appeal filed by the Consortium of National Law Universities (Consortium), holding that no interference was warranted regarding the answer key of the three contested questions as the answers indicated by the examiner were plausible and reasonable interpretations of the questions. The Court further held that submissions as well as records could not demonstrate that the answers suffered from any patent error or that they were such that no reasonable expert could have arrived at them.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court observed that,<\/p>\n

“Submissions as well as records could not demonstrate that the answers suffer from any patent error or that they are such that no reasonable expert could have arrived at them.”<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The Consortium conducted the CLAT-UG 2026 (the exam) on 7 December 2025. One question was withdrawn, and the evaluation was consequently carried out for a total of 119 marks. A provisional answer key was published on 10 December 2025, inviting objections. The respondent, a law aspirant, submitted his objections on 11 December 2025 for Questions 6, 9, and 13 of Set-C (i.e., Questions 88, 91, and 95 of Set-A).<\/p>\n

The objections were examined by subject-wise Expert Committees, and thereafter, the matter was placed before the Oversight Committee, which reviewed objections, justification of the paper setters, and recommendations of the Subject Expert Committees. The Oversight Committee ultimately concluded that the provisional answer key did not warrant any modification. Relying upon the said opinion, the final answer key was published on 16 December 2025 without any change.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the result declared based on the final answer key, the respondent approached this Court under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. By the judgment and order dated 3 February 2026, the Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition and directed that for Question 9 of Set-C, both options ‘B’ and ‘D’ be treated as correct, with a consequential direction to revise the merit list for subsequent rounds of counselling, while protecting admissions already concluded in the first round.<\/p>\n

Hence, the present appeal was filed by the Consortium on the ground that the Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the opinion of the expert bodies, particularly when the issue had undergone a two-tier scrutiny culminating in the decision of the Oversight Committee.<\/p>\n

The respondent also filed an appeal supporting the impugned judgment and contending that the relief ought not to have been confined to a single question.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Under which circumstances and up to what extent can courts go into the merits of academic decisions taken by expert bodies?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the final key answer of Question Nos. 6, 9, and 13 of Set-C is correct or interference is warranted in any of these questions.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether the Single Judge was justified in the impugned order, having regard to the limited scope of the judicial review in academic matters relating to evaluation and answer keys.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Analysis<\/h3>\n

    Scope of interference:<\/p>\n

    At the outset, the Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in academic matters concerning the evaluation of answer scripts in examinations is very limited and guided by well-established principles. The Court stated that the Supreme Court had consistently recognized that issues relating to the correctness of answers and the evaluation standards fall within the domain of concerned academic professionals, who possess the requisite expertise in the subject. Interference in an examination result under Article 226 is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as manifest error apparent on the face of the record.<\/p>\n

    “Even where two views are possible, the view taken by the final academic authority must ordinarily prevail, provided it is a plausible view based on academic reasoning.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    In this regard, the Court referred to Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span>, (2018) 2 SCC 357<\/span><\/a>, and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh<\/span>,<\/span> (2018) 7 SCC 254<\/span><\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court held that Courts should exercise restraint in matters involving evaluation of answer keys and should not act as appellate authorities over expert opinions. It was emphasized that re-evaluation or scrutiny by Courts is impermissible unless the error is manifest, demonstrable on the face of the record, and of such a kind that it would vitiate the entire evaluation process.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Court further referred to another CLAT examination case titled Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1144<\/span><\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court analysed questions and interfered with the answer, and held that to put all the candidates on equal footing, Question No. 116 be deleted from all the Sets as well.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Noting the aforesaid judgment, the Court reiterated that the outcome shall not only benefit the candidate who has approached the Court, but it also extends to every candidate who participated in the same examination in all fairness whenever there is an apparent error on the face of it.<\/p>\n

    The Court stated that the principles established by the Supreme Court also recognize that while answer keys are prepared with due care and expertise, the possibility of human error cannot be entirely ruled out. It is for this reason that the system of publishing provisional answer keys and inviting objections has evolved as a matter of fair practice. Such objections are examined by subject experts, and corrections, wherever found necessary, are incorporated before finalisation of the answer key. This institutional mechanism is intended to ensure transparency and accuracy in the evaluation process.<\/span><\/p>\n

    “The Court cannot enter into an exercise of alternative interpretation of questions.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    Analysis of Questions:<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. \n

      Question 6 Set C\/ Question 88 Set A:<\/span> The Court noted that the dispute in Question 6 was essentially based on the interpretation of the sequence of transformations prescribed in the given passage. The answer varies if one reads only one step and decides the answer, or if one reads all steps and thereafter decides the answer.<\/p>\n

      The Court stated that the question, i.e., which letter is prefixed to the word after the first half is reversed, could not be read in isolation from the subsequent directions, as the passage expressly indicates that only those who follow each condition in the exact order arrive at the correct transformed word\/answer. When the sequence is applied in its entirety, and the intermediate stages are properly understood in that context, the prefixed letter can be correctly identified. Thus, the answer indicated by the examiner, Option (B), was consistent with such a structured and contextual reading of the problem.<\/p>\n

      Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent’s objection proceeded on a fragmented interpretation, isolating one step without appreciating the cumulative design of the exercise, which was misconceived. The Court opined that a holistic reading of the question made it clear that the exercise was not confined to a single step in isolation but rather required comprehension of the cumulative effect of the stated operations, while strictly adhering to the order in which they were to be applied.<\/p>\n

      Thus, the Court held that there was no error in the answer key, and the answer provided by the examiner to Question 6 was correct.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Question 9 Set-C\/ Question 91 Set A:<\/span> The Court noted that this question presented a hypothetical outcome based on the given facts, i.e., Bharat has committed the theft and requires identification of the fact that must necessarily be incorrect for such a hypothesis to hold good. The material placed on record unequivocally establishes that Bharat’s alibi is supported by multiple independent witnesses confirming his presence at a different location throughout the relevant time period, i.e., from 8:00 PM to 1:30 AM. If, notwithstanding the same, Bharat is assumed to be the perpetrator, the inevitable consequence is that the stated time frame of his alibi cannot be correct.<\/p>\n

      Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that no other options other than the one indicated by the examiner carried out the same degree of logical conclusion without importing any fact or presumptions and did not necessarily negate the hypothesis. Therefore, the only fact that must necessarily be incorrect, if Bharat is to be treated as the offender, is the time frame of his alibi. Therefore, the Court held that the answer indicated by the examiner, i.e., Option (D), was in consonance with settled principles of deductive reasoning. The contrary view was taken by the Oversight Committee, which aligned with the respondent’s contention, failed to appreciate this necessity to eliminate all facts, and was therefore unsustainable. Thus, the answer provided by the examiner to Question 9 was correct.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Question 13 Set-C\/ Question 95 Set A:<\/span> The Court noted that this question required the identification of a necessary condition for Chitra to have committed theft based on the common factual background. The undisputed facts showed that Chitra remained at the graphic design studio from 7:00 PM until 11:45 PM, and that the theft occurred within the broader window between 10:00 PM and 1:00 AM. Given this timeline, it was evident that Chitra could not have committed the theft before 11:45 PM. Consequently, for her involvement, the theft must necessarily have taken place after she left the studio and before the night guard’s final round at 1:00 AM.<\/p>\n

      The Court stated that this requirement of timing was essential and the minimum condition to support the possibility of her involvement. The other options suggested in the question might be relevant considerations but did not constitute necessary conditions in the strict logical sense. Therefore, the Court held that the answer indicated by the examiner, i.e., Option (C), was the only condition that must necessarily be satisfied. Thus, the objection raised by the respondent was devoid of merit, and the examiner’s answer to Question 13 was correct.<\/p>\n

      The Court also noted that the process of finalization of the answer key underwent a structured and layered scrutiny mechanism. Such an exercise by experts in the related field establishes a strong presumption of correctness, particularly in academic matters, unless a clear and demonstrable error is established.<\/p>\n

      “The institutional mechanism adopted by the Consortium, involving subject experts and an Oversight Committee, reflects a structured and reasoned approach to finalisation of the answer key. Such determinations, having been arrived at after due academic scrutiny, ought not to be unsettled in the absence of compelling and demonstrable error.”<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Decision<\/h3>\n

      Upon examination of the three questions, the Court held that the answers accepted as final were plausible and reasonable interpretations of the questions. Submissions as well as records could not demonstrate that the answers suffered from any patent error or that they were such that no reasonable expert could have arrived at them. Thus, no interference was warranted.<\/p>\n

      Regarding the impugned order, the Court held that the interference by the Single Judge, though well-intentioned, did not align with the settled parameters governing judicial review in academic matters.<\/p>\n

      Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the Consortium, thereby setting aside the impugned decision.<\/p>\n

      [Consortium of National Law Universities v. Avneesh Gupta, Special Appeal No. 135 of 2026, decided on 8-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

      *Judgment authored by Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

      Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

      For the petitioner:<\/span> Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, Avneesh Tripathi, Nishant Mishra<\/p>\n

      For the respondent:<\/span> Nishant Mishra, Abhinav Gaur, Vibhu Rai, Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, Avneesh Tripathi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Dismissing a law aspirant’s challenge to three questions in CLAT UG 2026, the Allahabad High Court finds the examiner’s answers on logical reasoning and deduction correct in all three instances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67524,"featured_media":383834,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2822,3230,98188,104064,40801,30580,104066,98507,66443,101009,44887,83425,20181,104065],"class_list":["post-383829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Allahabad_High_Court","tag-CLAT","tag-clat-consortium","tag-clat-ug-2026","tag-consortium-of-national-law-universities","tag-expert-committee","tag-judicial-interference-in-exams","tag-judicial-review-in-academic-matters","tag-justice-saumitra-dayal-singh","tag-justice-swarupama-chaturvedi","tag-law-aspirants","tag-law-exam","tag-oversight-committee","tag-revision-of-merit-list"],"yoast_head":"\nCLAT UG 2026 : Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"CLAT UG 2026 | Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list, upholds original answer key holding that the answers given by examiner were correct and no patent error was demonstrated.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"CLAT UG 2026 | Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list, upholds original answer key holding that the answers given by examiner were correct and no patent error was demonstrated.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-12T04:30:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-12T04:34:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CLAT-UG-2026.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sonali Ahuja\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sonali Ahuja\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sonali Ahuja\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\"},\"headline\":\"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-12T04:30:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-12T04:34:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1887,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"CLAT\",\"CLAT Consortium\",\"CLAT UG 2026\",\"CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES\",\"Expert Committee\",\"Judicial interference in exams\",\"judicial review in academic matters\",\"Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh\",\"Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi\",\"Law Aspirants\",\"Law Exam\",\"Oversight Committee\",\"revision of merit list\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/\",\"name\":\"CLAT UG 2026 : Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-12T04:30:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-12T04:34:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\"},\"description\":\"CLAT UG 2026 | Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list, upholds original answer key holding that the answers given by examiner were correct and no patent error was demonstrated.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"CLAT UG 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/12\\\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\",\"name\":\"Sonali Ahuja\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sonali Ahuja\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/sonali\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CLAT UG 2026 : Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list | SCC Times","description":"CLAT UG 2026 | Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list, upholds original answer key holding that the answers given by examiner were correct and no patent error was demonstrated.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key","og_description":"CLAT UG 2026 | Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list, upholds original answer key holding that the answers given by examiner were correct and no patent error was demonstrated.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-12T04:30:43+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-12T04:34:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CLAT-UG-2026.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sonali Ahuja","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sonali Ahuja","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/"},"author":{"name":"Sonali Ahuja","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8"},"headline":"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key","datePublished":"2026-05-12T04:30:43+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-12T04:34:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/"},"wordCount":1887,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp","keywords":["Allahabad High Court","CLAT","CLAT Consortium","CLAT UG 2026","CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES","Expert Committee","Judicial interference in exams","judicial review in academic matters","Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh","Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi","Law Aspirants","Law Exam","Oversight Committee","revision of merit list"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/","name":"CLAT UG 2026 : Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-12T04:30:43+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-12T04:34:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8"},"description":"CLAT UG 2026 | Allahabad HC sets aside order directing revision of merit list, upholds original answer key holding that the answers given by examiner were correct and no patent error was demonstrated.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"CLAT UG 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/12\/clat-ug-2026-allahabad-hc-sets-aside-order-directing-revision-of-merit-list\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CLAT UG 2026 Answer Key Challenge Fails; Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revision of Merit List, Upholds Original Answer Key"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8","name":"Sonali Ahuja","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sonali Ahuja"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sonali\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/CLAT-UG-2026.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67524"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=383829"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383829\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":383836,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383829\/revisions\/383836"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/383834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=383829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=383829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=383829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}