Following the alleged NEET question paper leak and the controversy surrounding the Class 12 results of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the board’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) evaluation system has come under intense scrutiny. Anger among students and parents has been steadily rising. Although CBSE offered students the option of re-evaluation, the board’s online portal remained inaccessible for nearly 20 hours nationwide. Even after it became operational, users continued to face technical difficulties, further fueling frustration and eroding trust in the examination system.
Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, Prime Minister Narendra Modi intervened, prompting the central government to take significant administrative action. CBSE Chairman Rahul Singh and Secretary Himanshu Gupta were transferred, and replaced by Prashant Sitaram Lokhande as Chairman and Varun Bhardwaj as Secretary. Additionally, a one-member inquiry committee headed by S. Radha Chauhan was constituted to investigate the procurement process related to the OSM service and review all associated aspects.
In India’s education system, examination scores often serve as the primary measure of a student’s abilities. A student’s performance in a three-hour examination can significantly influence future academic and career opportunities. Class 12 board results, in particular, represent a crucial milestone in a student’s life. If the evaluation system itself is flawed, it directly jeopardizes students’ futures. Several education experts associated with NCERT had earlier criticized the OSM system, alleging that it was implemented hastily without adequate testing. When the results were released, many claimed those concerns had been validated.
Three Generation Z students—Sarthak Siddhant, Vedant Srivastava, and Nisarg Adhikari—not only exposed alleged flaws in CBSE’s OSM system but also triggered a nationwide debate. Sarthak Siddhant presented his findings before a Parliamentary Committee on Education, highlighting irregularities in the system before Members of Parliament.
The case of Vedant Srivastava raised even more alarming concerns. The answer sheet uploaded for him reportedly did not belong to him. When he questioned the discrepancy, he became the target of online abuse, with some social media users falsely labeling him a Pakistani and a traitor. Such reactions reflected a disturbing tendency to attack individuals raising legitimate concerns. CBSE later apologized for uploading the wrong answer sheet, leaving many of Vedant’s critics embarrassed.
Meanwhile, Sarthak exposed alleged flaws in the tendering process related to the OSM contract, while Nisarg Adhikari highlighted technical issues with the examination portal. Together, the three students effectively acted as whistleblowers. As more layers of irregularities emerged, public concern intensified. What initially appeared to be a technical issue increasingly came to be seen as a symptom of deeper failures within India’s examination system. Questions began to arise about whether vested interests within the system were profiting at the expense of students’ futures.
Today, lakhs of students are applying for re-evaluation because they believe they have received lower marks than expected. Critics argue that CBSE, despite being the country’s premier examination authority, has failed to establish a robust mechanism for addressing such discrepancies. Concerns have also been raised about the company awarded the OSM contract, whose previous record reportedly included similar issues during an implementation in Telangana.
The controversy has also highlighted the immense pressure associated with India’s marks-driven education culture. Students often face severe psychological stress when they score lower than expected. In some tragic cases, academic disappointment has contributed to student suicides. Parents, too, are sometimes accused of placing excessive expectations on their children, creating emotional strain that can have devastating consequences.
Voices supporting affected students are now emerging across the country, and the matter has reportedly reached higher courts. However, society must also learn an important lesson: students who raise concerns should not be subjected to online harassment or public ridicule.
While financially secure families may be able to afford re-evaluation fees, economically weaker students often lack that option. This raises important questions: Will CBSE have the courage to conduct a comprehensive reassessment? Could alternative evaluation methods be considered? Most importantly, how will justice be ensured for students who may have been harmed by errors, negligence, or irregularities?
A public apology from CBSE and administrative reshuffles alone cannot substitute for meaningful reform. There are growing calls for an independent investigation into the OSM system and the scanning process. Ultimately, the most important challenge remains restoring CBSE’s credibility. If students and parents lose faith in the examination system itself, the foundation of the education system is placed at risk.
