Allahabad HC Hearing in CLAT 2026 Revised Merit Case Continues

As of February 18, 2026, the Allahabad High Court continues to hear the special appeal regarding the CLAT 2026 merit list revision. The Consortium of National Law Universities has challenged the single-bench order that mandated a recalculation of ranks due to a disputed logical reasoning question. While admissions from the first two rounds remain protected, the third merit list for undergraduate courses is currently on hold pending a final judicial verdict. Legal arguments are focusing on the Oversight Committee's decision to overrule expert advice without providing documented justifications.

The Allahabad High Court is currently presiding over a high-stakes legal battle that has brought the undergraduate law admission cycle to a temporary standstill. As of today, February 18, 2026, the Division Bench is hearing the Special Appeal (No. 135 of 2026) filed by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs). The litigation stems from a previous single-bench directive that ordered a total revision of the CLAT 2026 merit list. The primary point of contention is Question No. 9 of Booklet C (Question No. 91 of Master Booklet A), where the court found that two options should be treated as correct. This judicial intervention has forced the Consortium to defer the third seat allotment list, affecting thousands of aspirants awaiting their turn in the 2026-27 admission session.

1. Core Legal Issues and Oversight Committee Discrepancies

The ongoing litigation centers on a procedural infirmity identified by the single-judge bench. During the initial hearing, it was revealed that an Expert Committee had recommended awarding marks for two separate options for a logical reasoning question, but this was later overruled.

• Expert Recommendation: A panel of subject matter experts initially concluded that both options ‘B’ and ‘D’ were technically accurate for the disputed question.
• Oversight Reversal: The Consortium's Oversight Committee reportedly discarded this expert view and retained only one correct option without recording specific administrative reasons.
• Judicial Observation: The Court noted that while it generally stays out of academic matters, it must interfere when an "Oversight Committee" acts arbitrarily without assigning justifications for reversing expert findings.
• Impacted Candidates: The litigation was initiated by a minor candidate, Avneesh Gupta, who argued that the incorrect evaluation significantly lowered his rank and denied him a seat at his preferred National Law University.

2. Impact on Counselling Schedule and Allotted Seats

As the litigation continues, the Consortium has taken steps to protect the interests of students who have already secured their positions. The Official Notification clarifies that the first two rounds of counselling are legally insulated from the outcome of this case.

• Seat Protection: The Court has explicitly clarified that students who have already taken admission pursuant to the first round of counselling shall not be disturbed by any future merit list revision.
• Third List Postponement: Originally scheduled for February 5, the release of the third merit list remains suspended until the Division Bench provides a definitive ruling on the litigation.
• Consortium’s Defense: The Consortium of NLUs is defending the "Final Answer Key" to ensure academic uniformity across all future rounds, citing the need for a stable admission framework.
• Waitlisted Aspirants: Thousands of students in the "float" category are currently in a state of uncertainty as the rankings may shift if the order for a revised merit list is upheld.

3. Procedural Delays and Next Hearing Milestones

The case status for SPLA 135/2026 remains "Pending" as the court navigates the complex arguments presented by both the litigation counsel and the Consortium’s legal team. Recent updates indicate that the matter has been "Passed Over" in some sessions due to a heavy roster.

• Jurisdictional Debate: The Consortium initially challenged the Allahabad High Court’s jurisdiction, but the court ruled that since the exam was conducted in Ghaziabad, a part of the cause of action arose within its territory.
• Stay Application: The Consortium has filed an urgent stay application (IA/2/2026) to halt the immediate implementation of the merit list revision while the appeal is heard.
• Division Bench Roster: The case is currently tied to a specific Division Bench, ensuring that the same judges continue to hear the intricate details of the contention.
• Revised Calendar: Once a verdict is delivered, the Consortium will be required to publish an updated counselling calendar within 48 to 72 hours to resume seat allotments.

Conclusion

As of February 18, 2026, the CLAT 2026 contention remains the most significant legal hurdle for law admissions in India. The outcome of this litigation will decide whether the merit list needs a massive recalculation for the third and subsequent rounds of counselling. For the Consortium, the goal is to maintain the finality of their expert-led evaluation, while for the petitioners, it is a fight for rank accuracy. Aspirants are advised to ignore rumors and rely only on Official Notifications regarding the revised schedule. The court's final decision is expected to provide much-needed clarity, allowing the 2026-27 batch to finally settle into their respective campuses by the July commencement date.

For regular updates follow Only Education News. For more details on law entrance exams and courses, check here: Law Exams List.