India’s high‑stakes exam system is once more under scrutiny after a widespread leak of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – undergraduate (NEET‑UG) paper forced two million students to retake the test. The incident, the latest in a string of failures, has eroded confidence in the National Testing Agency (NTA), the federal body established in 2017 to bring standardisation and transparency to national examinations.
The NTA was envisioned as a safeguard against paper leaks, administrative errors and cheating. It has since handled medical and engineering entrance tests along with university admissions. Yet the 2026 leak and the rapid resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan showcase long‑standing systemic issues.
Former education minister's successor appointed a high‑profile task force led by tech entrepreneur Nandan Nilekani to devise reforms. But many, including former panel members, see the move as repeating a familiar pattern: an exam mishap, student uprising, a new committee and new proposals that rarely convert into lasting change.
Experts point to three core weaknesses. First, the NTA’s staffing model, with only 24 permanent positions out of 221 staff, leads to a lack of institutional memory and quality control. Second, the centralized, one‑day test format exposes the system to catastrophic failure if a leak or technical glitch occurs. Third, reliance on paper‑based examinations remains incompatible with India’s rapidly expanding digital landscape.
BJ Rao, head of SGT University and former panel member, urges a shift toward fully digital, computer‑based exams conducted in state‑controlled online centres. He argues that technology, coupled with a permanent workforce educated in both academia and assessment design, could drastically reduce leaks.
Similarly, Keshav Aggarwal of the Educators Federation advocates reconceptualising NEET‑UG as a multi‑stage test, similar to the engineering entrance exam, where students take separate sessions that mitigate the risk of a single failed day.
Beyond exam redesign, voices like Yamini Aiyar from Brown University call for a more flexible testing schedule, allowing students multiple attempts annually. With millions competing for limited university seats, a single high‑stakes test can unduly determine a student’s future.
Insiders warn that dissolving the NTA would not solve fundamental problems. A single, well‑staffed national testing body already offers uniform security standards and streamlined result processes. Instead, deep structural reform is needed, including staff recruitment, technological upgrades, and a diversified testing framework.
For students, the impact is profound. Young aspirants such as Pari, who faced the NNET‑UG cancellation, and Mansi Bansal, who endured repeated UGC‑NET postponements, report halted lives and shattered plans. Their stories highlight the urgency of reform and the lack of confidence that will persist until tangible change occurs.
As the Nilekani‑led task force scales up, many view it with cautious optimism. The challenge will be whether its recommendations deliver concrete shifts – digital infrastructure, staff consolidation, and a robust, less centralized testing scheme – that restore faith and give students a fair, reliable pathway to higher education. The imagination of a resilient exam system is urgent; the implementation will have to succeed to change India’s high‑stakes future.
