The CLAT UG 2026 merit list will not be revised on the basis of the earlier Allahabad High Court order concerning Question 9, after a Division Bench of the court set aside the Single Judge’s direction to revise the merit list.
The development brings an end, at the Division Bench level, to a major legal dispute surrounding the CLAT 2026 answer key and merit list.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, on May 8, 2026, allowed the appeal filed by the Consortium of National Law Universities and restored the final answer key that had originally been released by the Consortium.
What Was the CLAT 2026 Question 9 Dispute?
The controversy began after a CLAT UG 2026 candidate challenged the Consortium’s answers to three questions in Booklet-C, corresponding to Questions 88, 91 and 95 in the master booklet.
The Allahabad High Court’s Single Judge had found merit in the challenge to Question 9 of Booklet-C, corresponding to Question 91 of the master booklet.
The court had directed the Consortium to treat both options B and D as correct for the disputed question and revise the merit list accordingly.
Following that order, the Consortium filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench. The counselling process was temporarily affected while the legal challenge was being heard.
Allahabad High Court Division Bench Reverses Earlier Order
The Division Bench subsequently examined the Consortium’s appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s order.
In its May 8 judgment, the Division Bench held that the answers accepted in the final answer key were plausible and reasonable and that the material before the court did not establish a patent error requiring judicial interference.
The court also emphasised the limited scope of judicial review in matters involving academic evaluation and expert opinion.
As a result, the earlier direction to revise the CLAT UG 2026 merit list was overturned.
Original CLAT 2026 Answer Key Restored
With the Division Bench judgment, the final answer key issued by the Consortium on December 16, 2025 was restored.
This means the earlier proposal to award marks for both options B and D for Question 9 does not form the basis for a revised CLAT 2026 merit list.
The Consortium had originally maintained its final answer key after considering objections through its examination review process. The Division Bench accepted the Consortium’s position and declined to interfere with the expert evaluation.
What Does This Mean for CLAT 2026 Candidates?
For candidates who appeared in CLAT UG 2026, the May 8 judgment is significant because it removes the uncertainty created by the earlier Single Judge order.
Candidates should not expect their CLAT 2026 ranks to be recalculated merely because of the Question 9 litigation.
The Consortium has continued the CLAT 2026 admission and counselling process. Its official website currently provides information on the first allotment list and subsequent vacant seats after the fifth list.
Candidates should therefore rely on the official Consortium of NLUs website for allotment lists, counselling schedules, vacant-seat notifications and further admission instructions.
CLAT 2026 Counselling Continues
The legal dispute had previously caused postponements in the counselling schedule.
In a May 1 notification, the Consortium had stated that the fourth round of undergraduate counselling was being postponed because the Division Bench was considering the appeal. It said the counselling process would resume following the court’s judgment.
After the Division Bench delivered its judgment on May 8, the legal basis for the earlier merit-list revision was removed.
The Consortium’s subsequent counselling activity indicates that the CLAT 2026 admission process has continued under the original merit-list framework. The official website now also lists vacant-seat notifications from participating NLUs following the fifth allotment list.
Why the CLAT 2026 Case Matters
The case highlights the difficulties that can arise when candidates challenge answers in a national-level entrance examination after the final answer key and merit list have already been published.
The Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench has also reaffirmed the principle that courts generally exercise restraint when reviewing academic and examination-related decisions made through established expert processes, unless a clear and demonstrable error is shown.
For CLAT aspirants, the immediate takeaway is clear: the earlier order directing revision of the CLAT 2026 merit list has been set aside, and the original final answer key stands restored.
Candidates should continue to follow official Consortium notifications for any further developments concerning counselling, vacant seats and admissions.
