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.
