In a major development affecting thousands of law aspirants across the country, the Allahabad High Court has stayed an earlier order directing a complete revision of the CLAT-UG 2026 merit list.

A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla granted interim relief to the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs), putting on hold the sweeping directions issued by a Single Judge on February 3 that required restructuring the entire ranking for future counselling rounds.

The controversy arose after candidates challenged discrepancies in the CLAT-UG 2026 examination evaluation. Petitioners alleged errors in the answer key and claimed these inaccuracies materially affected rankings and admission prospects.

The Single Judge had accepted these concerns and ordered the Consortium to revise the entire merit list for subsequent counselling rounds — a direction that could have reshuffled admissions across all National Law Universities.

The Consortium filed a special appeal, arguing that:

Limited corrections were feasible,
A full merit list overhaul would destabilise admissions nationwide,
Students already admitted would face uncertainty and prejudice.

After hearing the appeal, the Division Bench found the issue required deeper consideration before enforcing such a sweeping order.

“The operation of the order directing revision of the entire merit list shall remain stayed until further orders.”

The Court recognised that academic admission processes operate on strict timelines and large-scale intervention at an advanced stage could cause administrative chaos.

The stay effectively allows counselling and admissions to proceed under the existing results framework, subject to the outcome of the appeal.

The case raises important legal issues:

1. Scope of Judicial Review in Competitive Exams

Courts often correct answer-key errors — but should they restructure entire rankings?

2. Balancing Equity vs Administrative Stability

Relief to some candidates may unfairly displace others already admitted.

3. Institutional Autonomy of Examination Bodies

How far can courts intervene in academic evaluation decisions?

This order carries nationwide significance beyond CLAT:

Competitive examinations affect lakhs of students annually.
Courts must balance fairness with certainty.
Over-correction risks creating more injustice than it resolves.

By granting a stay, the High Court has temporarily prioritised stability of admissions while keeping the legality of evaluation methods open for final adjudication.

The final judgment will likely become a key precedent governing judicial intervention in national entrance examinations — particularly where relief to one group may disrupt the academic future of another.

For now, counselling continues — but the legal battle over merit, fairness, and certainty in competitive exams is far from over.