In a case of deja vu, the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) for admission into under-graduate courses in the country’s medical colleges were conducted and subsequently cancelled last week as the question paper had leaked before the exam. This is not for the first time that this cycle has been followed.
Who pays the price for it? The 22 lakh-odd students and their families. The conducting agency says that there would be no cost for the re-examination and also return of the fees. This is like paying the blood money for exonerating oneself from the crime one has committed.
The repeated NEET like controversies are not merely about leaked papers but they are also about leaked public trust. An examination system survives not because it claims credibility, but because students believe in its fairness. Once that belief weakens, the legitimacy of the entire educational structure begins to erode.
The head of the examination conducting body, the National Testing Agency (NTA), says that his philosophy is zero tolerance (towards malpractice), and that he was sticking to it. The discussion so far points that more than malpractice it was the inefficiency of the testing agency which has caused this embarrassment for the government and also the harassment for the students.
This raises a critical question as to why are examination bodies like the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), which conduct examinations for far larger numbers of students across the country, generally able to avoid such recurring disasters, while the NTA repeatedly falters? The answer perhaps lies in the very design and operational philosophy of the two organisations.
CBSE is a conventional government institution with deeply embedded bureaucratic accountability, permanent cadres, and long-tested procedures. It conducts examinations through an administrative structure where responsibilities are clearly fixed. There exists institutional memory, layered supervision, and direct governmental control over the chain of custody of examination material.
The NTA, on the other hand, was conceived as a “modern” and supposedly efficient autonomous testing agency. In practice, however, much of its work is outsourced to private vendors, technology firms, logistics agencies and temporary personnel. From printing and transportation to centre management and digital processing, multiple layers of subcontracting have created a fragmented system where accountability is diffused and security gaps multiply.
Outsourcing may improve efficiency in certain sectors, but high-stakes public examinations are not ordinary commercial operations. They are sovereign functions that determine the futures of millions. When too many critical processes are privatised, the state effectively loses direct control over the integrity of the examination chain.
This is precisely where the reform debate must begin. The first requirement is to recognise that examination management cannot be treated as an event-management exercise. The chain of question paper preparation, encryption, printing, transport, and distribution must remain entirely under state supervision with minimal external handling.
The government must reconsider the excessive dependence on outsourcing. The present model of temporary contracts and fragmented responsibility only encourages leak networks and organised rackets.
Every time an examination collapses, students are asked to “cooperate” and “understand the situation,” while officials continue without consequence. There should be statutory provisions fixing criminal and financial liability on officials, contractors, and institutions found negligent in protecting examination sanctity. Unless there is fear of punishment within the system, declarations of “zero tolerance” will remain rhetorical slogans.
India must move towards technological safeguards that reduce human vulnerability. While technology alone cannot eliminate corruption, it can reduce the number of physical touchpoints where leaks occur.
Finally, there is a larger philosophical issue involved. India’s education system increasingly treats students as data points in a gigantic competitive machine. Successive governments have centralised entrance examinations in the name of merit and uniformity. However, centralisation without institutional capacity only magnifies the scale of failure. When one examination collapses, millions suffer simultaneously.
Sidharth Mishra
Author and president, Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice
