Division Bench Upholds Expert Committee's Evaluation; Limits Scope for Judicial Review in Academic Matters
In a significant ruling, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has overturned the decision of a Single Judge that had directed modifications to the CLAT-UG 2026 answer key, reaffirming the integrity of expert evaluations in competitive examinations. The judgment was delivered on May 8, 2026, in the case of Consortium of National Law Universities v. Avneesh Gupta (Minor), arising from intra-court appeals challenging the earlier order favoring the writ petitioner.
The dispute centered around the correctness of answers to specific questions in the CLAT-UG 2026 exam, conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities. The Single Judge had directed the Consortium to treat both options 'B' and 'D' as correct for Question No. 9 of Set-C, necessitating a revision of the merit list. This decision was contested by the Consortium, leading to Special Appeal No. 135 of 2026, which sought to uphold the final evaluation process as determined by the expert bodies.
Upon review, the Division Bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi underscored the limited scope of judicial intervention in academic matters, emphasizing that courts should not act as appellate bodies over expert opinions unless errors are manifest and demonstrable. The bench referenced established precedents from the Supreme Court, including Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, which mandate judicial restraint and uphold the presumption of correctness in expert evaluations.
The Bench examined the disputed questions and concluded that the answers provided by the Consortium were plausible and reasonable, aligning with the structured scrutiny process involving subject experts and an Oversight Committee. The judges highlighted the importance of maintaining academic integrity and the role of expert bodies in ensuring accuracy in competitive exams.
The judgment signifies a reaffirmation of the principles governing judicial review in academic evaluations, restricting interference to cases of clear and demonstrable errors. It emphasizes the need for courts to respect the expertise of academic professionals and the structured processes designed to ensure fairness in competitive examinations.
As a result of this ruling, the original order of the Single Judge has been set aside, and the appeal by the Consortium has been allowed, preserving the final evaluation process and merit list as originally determined.
Bottom Line:
Judicial review in academic matters is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where the error in the evaluation process is demonstrable, apparent on the face of the record, and affects the fairness of the selection process.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
