Every year, thousands of students prepare for CLAT with one basic promise from the Consortium:
“You do not need prior legal knowledge to solve the Legal Reasoning section.”
This isn’t a suggestion. It’s an official rule — repeated in the syllabus, the exam guide, and every briefing the Consortium has ever released.
But CLAT 2026 simply did not follow this.
This is a quote copied verbatim from the Consortium of NLUs' own website:
"Legal Reasoning
In this section, you will be expected to read passages of around 450 words each. The passages may relate to fact situations or scenarios involving legal matters, public policy questions or moral philosophical enquiries. You will not require any prior knowledge of law to attempt the questions in this section."
Despite this, many questions in the CLAT 2026 Legal Reasoning section could not be solved without prior legal knowledge. Students didn’t “misunderstand the passages.” The passages did not contain the information needed.

If students are expected to follow every instruction to the letter, then the Consortium should be held to the same standard. Breaking your own rules disrespects every aspirant who showed up, prepared and played by them.

The legal profession is grounded in respect for rules and the integrity of due process. When those who oversee a national law entrance exam fail to follow their own decrees, it strikes at the heart of what makes this field noble.

Sign this petition and call for transparency, fairness, and adherence to the Consortium’s own rules.