Parliamentary Panel Seeks Answers from NTA and CBSE Over Exam Irregularities, NEET Controversy and Evaluation System Concerns
A Parliamentary Standing Committee has intensified its scrutiny of examination-related controversies by seeking detailed explanations from the National Testing Agency (NTA) regarding the definition of a “paper leak” and whether any such incidents have occurred in examinations conducted by the agency since its inception in 2018.
The move comes amid growing concerns about the integrity of competitive examinations and follows a recent interaction between committee members and senior NTA officials.
According to reports, the demand for clarification emerged after NTA representatives appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports and maintained that there had been no breach of question papers from the agency’s systems.
Officials reportedly argued that questions circulating before examinations were not leaked papers but merely predictions or content from so-called “guess papers,” prompting committee members to seek a precise and official definition of what the agency considers a paper leak.
The committee, headed by senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, is currently examining multiple issues linked to examination management in the country.
Among the major concerns under review are the alleged irregularities surrounding the NEET examination and the controversy involving the Central Board of Secondary Education’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) system.
To better understand the circumstances and administrative decisions involved, the panel has summoned senior officials from both the NTA and the CBSE.
As part of its inquiry, the committee has sought comprehensive written responses from both agencies.
While the CBSE has been asked to explain various aspects of the OSM evaluation mechanism, the NTA has been directed to provide detailed answers regarding the conduct of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and the steps taken to ensure the integrity of the examination process.
One of the key questions raised by the panel relates to the allegations of irregularities in the NEET-UG 2024 examination.
Members have specifically asked whether the NTA conducted any internal investigation into the controversy beyond the inquiries already being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The committee appears keen to determine whether the testing agency independently assessed the allegations and what conclusions, if any, it reached.
The lawmakers have also sought detailed information regarding the agency’s organisational capacity and staffing structure.
The NTA has been asked to provide data on its workforce strength over the past three years, details of fresh recruitments undertaken since 2022, and information regarding efforts to strengthen institutional capacity amid the growing scale and complexity of national-level examinations.
In addition, the committee has requested copies of the annual reports submitted by the NTA to the Department of Higher Education during the last three years.
These documents are expected to help lawmakers evaluate the agency’s functioning, administrative performance, and implementation of reforms during a period marked by increasing scrutiny of examination processes.
Particular emphasis has also been placed on the recommendations made by the expert committee headed by former ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan.
The parliamentary panel has asked the NTA to provide a detailed status report on all 101 recommendations made by the committee, including the specific measures adopted by the agency in response to each suggestion and the progress achieved so far.
The Radhakrishnan Committee was constituted by the Central Government in June 2024 following widespread concerns regarding the conduct of competitive examinations.
The high-level panel was tasked with proposing reforms aimed at ensuring greater transparency, fairness, efficiency, and security in the examination process.
Its mandate extended to reviewing the NTA’s organisational structure, operational procedures, examination systems, and digital security mechanisms.
Sources indicate that the CBSE was directed to submit its written responses by June 8, while the NTA has been given until June 10 to furnish its explanations.
As of now, neither organisation has officially responded to the committee’s latest queries.
The Parliamentary Committee has also raised several questions regarding modifications allegedly made to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) associated with the CBSE’s On-Screen Marking system.
Lawmakers are seeking explanations for changes introduced at various stages of the tendering process and whether those modifications affected the eligibility criteria for participating firms.
One area of focus involves the selection of COEMPT EduTeck for the OSM project.
The committee has asked whether any due diligence or background verification was conducted before awarding the contract and whether CBSE officials were aware of the company’s previous links with Globarena Technologies.
The latter had come under scrutiny during investigations into issues surrounding the 2019 Telangana Intermediate examination results.
Committee members have further questioned why certain eligibility conditions appeared to be altered in subsequent versions of the tender documents.
Specifically, they have sought clarification regarding the removal of provisions that would have disqualified companies with a history of unsatisfactory performance from participating in the bidding process.
Lawmakers have also expressed concern over changes to blacklisting criteria. They noted that earlier provisions reportedly barred companies with any prior record of blacklisting, whereas later versions of the tender documents allegedly restricted disqualification only to firms currently facing blacklisting.
The committee wants to understand the reasoning behind this modification.
Another issue under examination is the decision to set a minimum annual turnover requirement of ₹50 crore for participating companies.
The panel has requested a detailed explanation of how this threshold was determined and whether it may have influenced the competitive landscape of the bidding process.
The committee has additionally sought clarification regarding modifications related to data infrastructure requirements.
Members questioned why preference appeared to shift towards vendors with access to data centres empanelled by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), rather than companies operating their own dedicated facilities.
Questions have also been raised about technical requirements originally included in the tender documents.
According to the panel, provisions mandating the use of robotic scanning technology were eventually replaced with broader language requiring only an adequate number of scanners.
The committee wants to understand the rationale behind this change and its potential implications for evaluation efficiency and accuracy.
Similarly, lawmakers have sought explanations for the removal of a condition requiring answer sheets to be scanned without cutting their spines.
They have also questioned the reduction of the minimum scanning resolution from 300 DPI to 200 DPI, seeking to determine whether these changes could affect the quality and reliability of digitised examination records.
The committee is also examining modifications to eligibility requirements concerning prior project experience.
Earlier tender provisions reportedly required bidders to demonstrate experience in handling large-scale projects involving at least 500,000 students per assignment.
However, later revisions allowed firms to qualify based on cumulative answer-book volumes across multiple projects. Members have asked why this shift was considered necessary.
In a separate line of inquiry, the panel has reminded the CBSE that it had previously requested documents related to the February, May, and August 2025 tenders concerning the OSM system.
According to sources, those documents have not yet been provided to the committee.
Furthermore, lawmakers have sought information about the actions taken following observations made during a trial run of the OSM system.
The committee has asked whether concerns identified by independent observers were formally addressed and whether the findings were discussed with the Ministry of Education before implementation decisions were finalised.
As scrutiny over examination administration and evaluation systems intensifies, the Parliamentary Committee’s investigation is expected to play a significant role in shaping future reforms.
The responses submitted by the NTA and CBSE could influence policy decisions aimed at strengthening transparency, accountability, and public confidence in India’s examination framework.
