Ban on revising the merit list of CLAT-UG 2026: Counseling will continue as per the merit list, High Court refuses to interfere.

Prayagraj. The division bench of Allahabad High Court has stayed the order of the single bench, in which it was directed to revise the merit list of CLAT UG-2026. The court has said that counseling will continue as per the present merit list. Also, the instructions to revise the entire merit list on the basis of the opinion of the expert panel will be postponed.

The court said that the opposition petitioner can be given provisional admission but it will depend on the decision of the appeal. The division bench of Justice Soumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajit Shukla has given this order while hearing the special appeal filed through the convener of the Consortium of National Law Universities, Sonipat.

The division bench has said that the decision to give 1.25 marks to all the candidates is not appropriate, as it may affect the rights of other candidates. The opinion of the expert panel should be taken for further action. The court was told that the original petitioner Avnish Gupta has been selected and it is possible that he may be offered counseling for admission in the National Law University, Sonipat. The court said, the petitioner can be given provisional entry in Sonipat till the appeal is pending. This will be subject to the result, which may result in him getting admission in a higher-better institution. Also, if the petitioner becomes eligible for admission in any higher institution through upgradation etc. through any means other than this case, then this benefit can be provided despite the pendency of the appeal.

The consortium’s advocate said that the single bench had made a mistake in accepting the argument of Ghaziabad resident petitioner Avneesh Gupta that the two answers B and D of question number 9 of Booklet C were correct. The expert panel has accepted the original petitioner’s objection but the over-site committee (monitoring committee) proved that recommendation wrong. It was said that the courts should not easily interfere with the expert opinion. The petitioner has not made any demand to give 1.25 marks to all the candidates.

This was the case: Earlier, when two answers were found correct for question number nine, Justice Vivek Saran had earlier directed the Consortium to consider both options B and D as correct and revise the merit list and publish it again within a month. The Oversight Committee had overturned the decision of the Expert Committee without giving any reason. He considered only option B to be correct. The single bench had found that there was no logic in the decision of the Oversight Committee. In such a situation, only the decision of the expert committee will be considered. The consortium’s argument that the Allahabad High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter was also rejected because the authority was registered in Karnataka. It was said that if even a little cause of action in a case is within the jurisdiction of the court, then it has the right to hear it. In this sequence, the Supreme Court’s Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd vs Union of India case was also cited.