After the 2025 Scandal, Anything Less Than a Flawless CLAT 2026 Is Suicidal

Judicial Indictment in CLAT 2025

The CLAT 2025 saga started from December 07, 2024, with hasty result declaration, and ended on May 07, this year, in the Supreme Court. The bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice AG Masih, while asking the consortium to revise the results, did not mince words; “At the outset, we must express our deep anguish regarding the callous and casual manner in which the Respondent No.1 has been framing questions for the Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred to as “CLAT”), an examination on the basis of which meritorious candidates get entry into the prestigious National Law Universities across the country.” It was more than a judicial scolding; an indictment of an institution entrusted with the responsibility of filtering out the best-suited minds for the country’s legal profession.

Beyond the CLAT result revision, several issues remained largely unaddressed. These included;

• Exorbitant objection fee: Rs. 1000 per question charged by the consortium from the students, criticised as prohibitive.

• A grievance redressal system: Works as a postmortem, with no conclusive outcome for students

• An exorbitant amount of counselling fees and a non-refundable confirmation fee, fueling protests in NLUs by the student bodies.

• Absence of a permanent body to conduct CLAT

The Irreparable damage in CLAT 2025

The 2025 CLAT caused irreparable harm to thousands of students who were downgraded in the merit list. Some of them were completely omitted from the final admission lists. The CLAT ranks shifted by over 1500 for several students in the revised merit list. These students were forced to restrategise their LLB admissions and pivot to non-NLUs at a time when top law schools had locked most of their seats.

Why CLAT 2026 Cannot Afford Another Blunder?

Repeat 2025, and CLAT becomes a national joke.

Since its inception, CLAT has faced challenges. From copying the questions from standardised books to posting 15-20 wrong answers in a single question paper, CLAT has demonstrated every possible way it should not be held. The 2018 online CLAT fiasco forced the consortium to revert to offline mode. All these technical and non-technical issues have resulted in long-drawn courtroom battles, loss of trust, and widespread frustration among students.

With 2027 reforms looming, the CLAT 2026 is likely to be the last in the current pattern. The consortium would not want to see it end on a bitter note, which might lead to a potential handover to the National Testing Agency (NTA) or a different body. The Supreme Court has already said that the idea of entrusting the task of conducting the conduct of entire examination to different Law Universities every year needs to be revisited.

Following the 2025 CLAT debacle, the apex court revived Shamnad Basheer's 2015 PIL. The Court issued notices to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Union of India for a permanent CLAT conducting body similar to NTA for JEE and NEET. In this context, a repeat of the CLAT 2025 blunder or even a minor error in the exam paper would create so much noise that it could be suicidal for the consortium.

Salvaging CLAT: Need to address immediate concerns

CLAT, in the current model, has grey areas. Answering a majority of questions requires interpretation, which is prone to challenges. The consortium must frame the question with objective clarity without disturbing the soul of the test — critical thinking and aptitude. Here are some fixes that consortium members must consider on December 07.

Revamp exam centres

CLAT 2026 needs exam centres equipped with better facilities — recording of the tests and power backups. A last-minute change/swap of test centres, as happened in previous CLATs, may not help in conducting the exam smoothly.

The bench of Justice BR Gavai rebuked the consortium for inadequate facilities in the examination centres. The Court said, ‘We are not at all satisfied with the way the examination was conducted. The body which was given the task of conducting the examination was duty-bound to ensure facilities of uninterrupted UPS and generator facilities. The record indicates complete inadequacy on that point.’ This observation was in response to inadequate infrastructure in CLAT test centres to monitor the examination process and students highlighting inconsistencies in the centres.

Answer keys and objection fee

The two-phase release of CLAT answer keys is a standard norm in entrance exams. However, this should not be a ground for preparing provisional answer keys in a ‘casual manner’.

Errors in the provisional keys not only make the students anxious, but they also add a financial burden of Rs. 1000 per question. It puts the students in a fix; the answer keys prepared by the consortium are wrong, but flagging these comes with a penalty to be borne by the students.

The justification is that the higher fee discourages students from raising unnecessary objections. However, such a claim should be made only after ensuring error-free provisional answer keys.

Extend objection window

The 24-hour window for raising objections is certainly not enough for students to process every answer, gather evidence and submit to the consortium. The objection window should be extended for at least 2-3 days.

Grievance redressal

The consortium provides a grievance redressal mechanism soon after the result declaration. It does not have any impact on the result of the candidates, raising questions over its usefulness. There has been no transparency in the grievance redressal mechanism either. Student can submit their grievance, but it remains a one-way street; an incomplete communication. There is a need to give a meaning and purpose to this grievance redressal mechanism. And most importantly, this facility should be provided before the results are announced.

Transparency in results

Over the years, the consortium has substantially reduced the disclosure of results. While individual results should always be secured and communicated to the students in view of privacy, there should be sufficient public disclosure of data with respect to the number of students registering and appearing in CLAT, marks and rank lists and even region-wise participation of students in the examination. Such disclosures will not only help bring transparency to results but also help in understanding the enrollment trends and participation of students from different backgrounds.

Improve CLAT counselling

Finally, the CLAT counselling requires a restructuring with better scheduling. The counselling registration fee of Rs. 30,000 (Rs. 20,000 for SC and ST students) should be reduced.

Locking a seat also requires a non-refundable confirmation fee of Rs. 20,000. This has been a bone of contention between students and the consortium. It should either be removed or reduced to the extent that students can approach law schools with more confidence and without worrying about the financial loss.

Like JEE, CLAT is a national-level law entrance exam. India has over 1700 law schools functioning currently. CLAT is accepted only by around 100 law schools across the country, including 25 NLUs. To increase the acceptance of the CLAT exam, the consortium must ensure that the exam is conducted flawlessly. Repeated blunders undermine trust in the consortium and CLAT as a national-level exam.