Changing the questions is only half the job. The 2026 report argues that the CLAT keeps producing errors because of how it is made — and it proposes fixing the process itself. This is the least glamorous part of the report and arguably the most important, because it is what would keep the other reforms working year after year.
As always: these are proposals on the 2028 track. CLAT 2027 runs as usual.
The root problem: a new host every year
Right now a different National Law University takes charge of the CLAT each year, through a rotating convenor. So the people making the paper change annually. Nobody builds up lasting expertise, the same mistakes recur, and difficulty swings from year to year. There is no public information on how a paper is checked between first draft and final version. The report treats this rotation as the underlying cause of the inconsistent quality.
What the exam actually is, and why that matters
The committee makes a quiet but important point: the CLAT is an aptitude test, which is a kind of psychometric test — one designed to measure underlying abilities like comprehension, reasoning, and analysis, rather than stored knowledge. Tests like this are not thrown together. They are built to meet standards for three things in particular:
Bias — the test should not systematically favour one social group over another. Reliability — papers should be comparable in difficulty from one year to the next (the wildly varying passage lengths are a visible sign this is not happening today). Validity — each section should genuinely measure the skill it claims to, not accidentally test the same shallow reading in five different places. Building for those things takes specialist skill. The LSAT and LNAT are designed exactly this way, drawing on expertise from psychology and the social sciences. The report's point is simple: the CLAT already claims to be this kind of test, so it should be built like one.
Recommendation 1: let professionals set the paper
The report's first formal recommendation is that trained specialists — people who actually build standardised aptitude tests — should set the CLAT each year, not whichever university is hosting. It offers two routes.
Option 1 is an external setter. Run a tender for organisations with real test-development expertise, initially for a fixed period (say three or five years), then review. The model here is the UK's LNAT, which is overseen by a consortium of law schools but designed and delivered by the professional testing company Pearson VUE and its subsidiary Edexcel. The report suggests an external provider could just set the paper, while the Consortium continues to administer the exam itself.
Option 2 is to build the expertise in-house over time, by recruiting qualified exam-setters into a strengthened Consortium secretariat. Since that takes time, the report suggests a sensible sequence: start with an external setter, then transition to an internal team later.
One route it explicitly rejects: handing the CLAT to the National Testing Agency, the body that runs exams like NEET. The report notes the NTA's recent record has drawn heavy criticism, including a Parliamentary Standing Committee finding that at least five of fourteen exams it ran in a year faced major issues. So the committee cannot endorse that option. It suggests the Consortium could instead lean on institutions with proven test-design experience, such as the IIMs, for help choosing a provider.
Recommendation 2: a standing exam board and real machinery
Once professionals draft the paper, the Consortium's job shifts to reviewing it properly. The report wants a permanent "exam board" that vets each paper — usually in two rounds: comment on the first draft, then check the revised version and the setter's responses. Some board members could be permanent, others appointed for fixed terms.
Around that, it wants the unglamorous machinery of a serious national exam, drawing on a government expert committee's recommendations: clear owners for each task and a defined chain of command; written standard operating procedures for every step; coordinated roles for partners like test centres; strict timelines for setting and vetting; systematic communication with students and parents; a fast, fair grievance system; careful handover of staff so institutional memory is not lost; and a mechanism for continual improvement. The committee adds one more of its own: tight, clearly specified processes to keep the paper confidential at every stage, from drafting through review.
All of this needs a bigger secretariat than the modest one the Consortium runs today. A stronger secretariat could also take on wider goals the report cares about — means-tested fee waivers, scholarships for admitted students who need them, and the Consortium's broader mission of improving legal education.
Making good information free
This part matters most for fairness. A lot of what coaching centres sell is not secret skill — it is basic information about what the exam is, how it is structured, and what the questions look like. The report argues the Consortium should simply give that away.
Its suggestions: free official sample papers, explanatory answer keys published after the exam, walkthrough videos, and material in regional languages, not just English. Top law tests abroad, and universities like Oxford and Cambridge, already publish this kind of guidance, which shrinks the advantage of paid intermediaries. The committee also points to existing access initiatives like IDIA (Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access) as natural partners, and floats a short English bridge course for admitted students who need one. The more the official body explains openly, the less a student has to pay someone else for the basics.
How the switch would actually happen
The report lays out a careful transition, so the move from old system to new is not chaotic. In outline: publish the report; if recommendations are accepted, announce them and the target year; invite tenders from test-setting organisations, requiring each bidder to submit full sample UG and PG papers; publish the sample paper from the winning bid so students know the format; have the winning setter prepare a draft paper in consultation with the exam board (or an interim advisory group); field-test that draft on a realistic sample of students; then finalise the paper under the exam board — all under strict confidentiality, with severe, pre-set consequences for any leak. A time-bound steering committee would drive the whole rollout.
The report suggested the first reformed exam could be CLAT 2027. But here is the reality check that runs through this whole series: the Consortium's Governing Body has decided 2027 stays unchanged, so this transition is now aimed at CLAT 2028.
What this means for you
You never sit an "institutional reform" — but you feel it. If these changes land, the exam should become more predictable, less error-prone, and less dependent on expensive coaching, with official information you can actually trust instead of second-hand guesses. That is a better deal for every candidate, and an especially better deal for those without money to spend on it.
For now, the practical advice is unchanged: prepare for the current pattern for 2027, watch for the official 2028 notification, and keep building the reading and reasoning skills that every version of this exam — old or new — is trying to reward.
Frequently asked questions
How will the CLAT be made fairer?
The 2026 report proposes professional paper-setters instead of a rotating university convenor, a standing exam board with two rounds of review, strict confidentiality and procedures, and free public study material — sample papers, explanatory answer keys, walkthrough videos, and content in regional languages — to reduce dependence on coaching.
Who will set the CLAT paper in future?
The report recommends trained standardised-test experts rather than a different NLU each year. It offers two routes: hire an external provider through a tender (like the UK's LNAT, set by Pearson VUE and Edexcel), or build the expertise inside a strengthened Consortium secretariat over time.
Will the NTA conduct the CLAT?
No. The report explicitly rejects handing the CLAT to the National Testing Agency, citing heavy criticism of the NTA's recent record, including a Parliamentary Standing Committee finding that at least five of fourteen exams it ran in a year faced major issues.
What is the proposed CLAT exam board?
A permanent body that vets each paper, usually in two rounds — commenting on the first draft, then checking the revised version and the setter's responses — with some members permanent and others on fixed terms, supported by clear procedures and strict confidentiality.
Will the CLAT release official sample papers?
The report strongly recommends it. To reduce coaching dependence, it wants the Consortium to publish free official sample papers, explanatory answer keys after the exam, walkthrough videos, and material in regional languages, similar to what the LSAT, LNAT, and universities like Oxford and Cambridge already do.