Fair platform

The seven-member panel’s recommendations to improve transparency and efficiency in national entrance examinations are a long-overdue acknowledgment of the deep flaws in India’s higher education system. The litany of disruptions in these exams—from paper leaks to postponements—has eroded trust in the system and jeopardized the aspirations of millions. The panel, led by former ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan, has proposed reforms that are both necessary and timely. However, their implementation must go beyond surface-level changes to address systemic issues.

The statistics alone highlight the severity of the problem. Over the past five years, 41 documented cases of paper leaks across 15 states have affected 1.4 crore candidates. In 2024, NEET and UGC-NET faced cancellations due to compromised integrity, while CUET’s repeated delays exacerbated stress for students and institutions alike. This crisis reflects a Sisyphean struggle—the ever-widening gap between the demand for quality education and the infrastructure to support it.

The panel’s recommendation to reduce the “high dependence” on the National Testing Agency (NTA) is particularly significant. Tasked with conducting 244 tests since its inception in 2018, the NTA’s workload has doubled, with registered candidates increasing from 67 lakh annually in 2019-2021 to 122 lakh in 2022-23. Such over-reliance on a single entity invites vulnerabilities, particularly given its dependence on third-party service providers. Diversifying responsibilities and limiting the NTA’s focus to entrance examinations, as suggested, could mitigate risks of malpractice and corruption.

Another critical recommendation is the election-like collaboration between the Centre and states for exam security and the adoption of a “digi-exam” system. Biometric verification, modeled after DigiYatra, and a shift to “computer adaptive testing” tailored to individual abilities promise to modernize the examination process. However, technology alone cannot solve these issues. The CUET’s persistent glitches have shown that digital solutions, if poorly executed, can create new forms of inequality and confusion. Robust infrastructure and meticulous planning are essential to ensure inclusivity and ease of use for all candidates.

The proposed comprehensive review of the examination process is a step in the right direction. It acknowledges that bridging the gap between aspiration and opportunity requires more than a superficial overhaul. From improving user interfaces to providing adequate support systems, every aspect of the examination process must be designed with the candidate’s experience in mind. Policymakers must ensure that digitization enhances accessibility rather than becoming another barrier.

Ultimately, these reforms are not just about fixing a flawed system; they are about restoring faith in a process that millions depend on for their futures. The panel’s vision is commendable, but its success will hinge on diligent execution, accountability, and a commitment to equity. Only then can India’s examination system evolve into a truly fair and transparent platform for opportunity.