Examination reforms: For millions of Indian students, competitive examinations are the gateways to scarce college seats or good jobs. Families spend years and much of their savings preparing for a few hours in an examination hall. A leaked paper can wipe out an attempt, an academic year and money that many households cannot readily replace.
The latest protests began with anger over paper leaks but widened into a challenge to the examination system itself. Students are asking whether tests carrying such high stakes measure anything beyond recall, speed and familiarity with a predictable format.
READ | Why India’s unemployment rate misses the jobs crisis
Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on July 26 a task force on examination reforms headed by Nandan Nilekani. The government has asked the panel to consider technological and structural changes to the National Testing Agency. That may restore confidence in the conduct of examinations. The panel should also examine the tests.
Failed attempts to address leaks
The Nilekani panel is not the government’s first response to an examination crisis. In June 2024, the Education Ministry appointed a committee headed by former ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan to examine the conduct of examinations, data security and the working of the NTA. A steering committee was later set up to monitor its recommendations. Yet Parliament’s education committee said in June 2026 that irregularities were continuing and asked the ministry for a time-bound implementation plan. The new panel should first establish what remains undone and why.
The July 26 announcement disclosed little beyond Nilekani’s appointment. It did not publish the panel’s terms of reference, reporting deadline or authority to examine the design of entrance tests. Until those details are released, it is unclear whether the panel will reconsider what examinations measure or confine itself to technology and administration.
READ | Student protest restores ministerial accountability
Examination reforms cannot stop at exam security
Repeated leaks point to failures in the custody of question papers, examination-centre management, vendor oversight and digital access. Where papers are transmitted electronically, encryption and access logs can help. Where officials or contractors collude with cheating networks, another software layer will achieve little. Investigation, prosecution and procurement accountability are required.
The NTA itself is thinly staffed. A Rajya Sabha reply on July 22 said that only 24 of its 39 sanctioned permanent posts were filled, while it depended on 73 contractual workers and 124 outsourced personnel. Since 2018, the agency has conducted more than 270 examinations involving over 6.6 crore registrations. An examination body carrying such responsibility cannot function mainly as a contracting office. The government must decide which technical and supervisory functions should remain within the NTA.
Nilekani’s record makes him a credible choice for systems design. As the first chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of India, he led Aadhaar during its formative years. An examination system, however, has to do more than authenticate candidates and protect documents. It must also judge whether a candidate is suited to a course.
Technology can reduce impersonation, restrict access to papers and leave an audit trail. It cannot decide whether a multiple-choice paper is an adequate test of writing, independent reasoning or research aptitude. Those are academic questions. Universities and subject experts must answer them.
READ | India’s democratic anxiety is a crisis of trust
Competitive exams feed the coaching economy
The economic stakes surrounding examinations have created a large parallel industry of coaching institutes, test-preparation platforms, publishers and admission consultants. These businesses thrive when competition is intense and examination formats remain predictable.
Students are trained to recognise patterns, master shortcuts and repeatedly solve earlier papers. Such preparation can improve scores without deepening understanding. Familiarity with the examination may count for more than curiosity about the subject.
The system therefore risks selecting the most intensively coached test-takers. Access to expensive coaching also weakens the claim that a common examination places every candidate on equal terms.
This does not make standardised testing useless. A common paper is an administratively defensible way to screen millions of applicants. The error lies in allowing the first screening device to become the final judgment.
India’s examination system measures too little
The NTA now conducts examinations at several stages, including CUET for undergraduate and postgraduate admissions, NEET, JEE and UGC-NET. These tests serve different purposes, but their expansion has placed objective assessment at the centre of admissions and academic eligibility.
Multiple-choice questions can test subject knowledge efficiently. On their own, they cannot show whether a candidate can frame a question, build an argument, interpret conflicting evidence or sustain a research project. At the postgraduate and doctoral levels, a high score can admit a student whose writing and research ability has never been tested.
For courses in literature, law, design, social sciences and research, universities should be able to supplement a common screening test with a subject paper, writing sample, portfolio or interview. Additional assessment need not cover every applicant. It can follow the initial test and apply only where the demands of the programme justify it.
India’s large number of candidates makes such evaluation harder and more expensive. Administrative convenience, however, is a poor reason to use the same form of assessment for entry into an undergraduate course and eligibility for research.
The National Education Policy 2020 acknowledged the limits of rote-based assessment. It called for competency-based evaluation that tests analysis and higher-order skills. Entrance examinations have moved more slowly than the policy language.
The Nilekani panel should separate exam security from exam design. The NTA must make leaks harder and fix responsibility when they occur. Universities and regulators must decide where an objective examination is sufficient and where academic judgment should return.
Reform confined to encryption, biometric checks and digital delivery may produce a safer question paper. It will leave India with the same narrow examination.