Introduction:
In a country like India, where myriads of entrance examinations determine the fate of lakhs of candidates, the National-Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (hereinafter “NEET”) is nothing short of an extravagant affair. NEET UG 2026 was no exception to this. In fact, the sheer amount of chaos it caused even surpassed that of its 2024 predecessor.
The decision of the National Testing Agency (hereinafter “NTA”) to cancel the NEET UG 2026 within a week on account of an alleged paper leak immediately snowballed into a political storm. What is particularly concerning is that despite the explicit recommendations issued by the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (hereinafter “Vanshika Yadav”) to address the root cause, NEET 2026 was a repeat telecast of NEET 2024. In this backdrop, this blog attempts to address the questions that include not only the logistical and security lapses that have engulfed the NEET examination but also the persistent institutional bottlenecks, despite the clear roadmap laid down by the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav. Ultimately, the blog attempts to decipher the accountability of the NTA in the aftermath of the havoc witnessed during the NEET 2026 examinations, keeping in mind the recommendations of the K. Radhakrishnan Committee Report.
Recurring Fault Lines: Revisiting the NEET 2026 Controversy
The NEET 2026 took place on 3rd May, 2026 for nearly 23 lakh candidates in pen-and-paper mode, with almost 97% turnout. However, within a week, NTA was compelled to take cognisance of the investigation launched by the Rajasthan Special Operations Group regarding the alleged irregularities in the NEET 2026. Thereafter, the NTA issued a public notice to cancel the exam and re-conduct it. The reins of the investigation were handed over to the CBI, and several arrests were made nationwide. As far as the judicial aspects are concerned, Medical Organisations such as FAIMA approached the Supreme Court seeking certain reforms to the examination.
It is interesting if one observes how the trajectory of events resembles its precursor in 2024. The intervention of the High Courts was a significant development even in 2024. Several writ petitions were filed in the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts against grace marks compensation. In the case of Tanmoy Chattopadhyay v. National Testing Agency, the Calcutta High Court even sought a response from NTA regarding irregularities in the grace marks system.
Remarks from prominent political figures were also a standard feature of the 2024 paper leak, and medical associations at the time raised concerns and filed petitions for a CBI-level investigation. The only difference was the alacrity with which NTA cancelled the exam this time, whereas in 2024, the same demand was refused by both NTA and the Apex Court in 2024. Thus, it becomes important to analyse what changed in 2026 that nudged the NTA to agree to something which it ferociously defended in 2024.
Re-Examination Conundrum: Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India
Supreme Court (hereinafter “the Court”), in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, was beset with a challenge to determine the validity of the NEET 2024 examination. While addressing the petitioner’s key prayers for fresh examination, a halt on the counselling process and declaring the grace mark mechanism arbitrary, etc., the Court put forth the litmus test to determine whether the re-test should be conducted or not.
As per the criteria, the re-test may be conducted when two conditions are fulfilled: 1) any such untoward event has affected the sanctity of the entire examination process; and 2) it is not possible to parse out the beneficiaries of wrongdoing from others. Accordingly, the Court relied on precedents like Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission (1990), Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970), and Madhyamdic Sikha Mandal, M.P v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti (1998), to propound the litmus test. The Court highlighted that in all these cases, a re-test was conducted not only because the paper leakage was systematic but also because it was nearly impossible to differentiate between the beneficiaries and those who did not benefit from such a leak.
As per the Court, substantive malpractice was an essential element for cancellation and re-examination. With respect to the requirement of material evidence, the Court held that the standard of evidence should be sufficiently strong to establish the presence of systemic malaise. Furthermore, the Court impliedly questioned the NTA’s erroneous reliance on Disha Panchal v. Union of India as a justification for compensatory grace marks. The petitioner’s plea for re-examination relied on Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE (2015) and Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (2021), and the Court, while dealing with these precedents, laid down the twin test provided above. Notably, throughout the proceedings, NTA did not budge from its stance that malpractices were confined to specific geographical pockets like Godhra, Hazaribagh and Patna. Ultimately, the Apex Court denied the relief sought by the petitioners because the evidence presented did not establish the widespread prevalence of the malpractice. As the malpractice was confined to a selected few areas, the Court found no merit in ordering re-examination. In a nutshell, in the absence of strong material evidence, the Court did not consider the prayer of re-examination a feasible option both on legal as well as practical grounds.
This leaves us with a unique predicament. If, in 2024, the Court refused the prayer for re-examination as the material evidence was not strong enough to suggest any widespread paper leak, does that mean the NTA’s decision to conduct re-examination signals a widespread paper leak to the extent that beneficiaries cannot be separated from the non-beneficiaries? And if that is the case, can we say that the sanctity and the integrity of the NEET are breached to the extent that the role of the NTA warrants scrutiny?
NTA: The Accountability Deficit?
NTA has been the subject of public criticism both in the past and the present. Irrespective of the multitude of cases filed every year against irregularities in the exams conducted by it, scores of irregularities continue to plague the agency. However, rather than blindly ascribing the blame to NTA, a thorough analysis is warranted.
The approach taken by NTA throughout NEET 2024 was highly inconsistent and shoddy, and it remains so even in 2026. No doubt, conducting an exam on such a large scale is an uphill task. However, what needs to be remembered is that the mandate of the NTA is to conduct such examinations. Hence, NTA, being a specialised agency incorporated for conducting entrance examinations, pretexts like ‘scale and volume of the exam make the management of the exam difficult’ lack merit. Irrespective of the coordination and planning that goes into such examinations, NTA cannot shield itself under the excuse that the exam is conducted in multiple centres for lakhs of aspirants.
Overall, it gives the impression that the NTA seldom acts on time and even if it does, somehow fails to live up to the expectations. This sorry state of affairs continues to challenge the NTA even in 2026. For instance, the public notice issued by NTA on 3rd May 2026 spoke volumes about the robust security and monitoring framework. From GPS-enabled vehicles and CCTV surveillance to mandatory frisking and biometric authentication, NTA mentioned everything that they had put in place for the safe and secure conduct of the examination and yet the paper leaked.
The prescribed dress code of the agency was also the subject of controversy as it was alleged that certain candidates were asked to remove the religious object. Although the advisory on the dress code and permissible items explicitly allowed the usage of any objects of faith, NTA failed to clearly sensitise the ground forces involved in the security apparatus about these advisory guidelines.
Even the changes brought by the NTA in the aftermath of the paper leak seem inadequate and reactive in nature. The decision to extend the examination time by 15 minutes, though welcome, leaves us with an uncomfortable silence. Why did it take so long for the NTA to realise something that candidates have been asking for years? It is rather unfortunate that this patchwork of ad hoc measures will produce limited results, as it ignores major drivers of paper leaks – a fragile and fragmented logistics and security infrastructure.
The Security Mirage: Beyond Assurances
In 2024, NTA submitted to the Supreme Court its comprehensive security custody chain for question papers, highlighting every procedure from preparation and printing till the final distribution. NTA affirmed that extreme caution was exercised on its part since the preparation took place under CCTV surveillance. Among other things, it mentioned how its question papers were transported in GPS-enabled trunks with electronic locks monitored via real-time CCTV. The responsibility of transporting these question papers was entrusted to a private logistics company. These papers, stored in government banks, were then transported to the destination through e-rickshaws. Even a cursory glance at this security apparatus will lay bare the loopholes in this custody chain which could be easily exploited. The involvement of private courier companies in transportation raises suspicion, which is further exacerbated by the use of e-rickshaws.
This impregnable security chain was breached several times in 2024, with almost twelve examination centres receiving different question papers. Lack of communication between components of the security and managerial apparatus at such a gross level is perplexing, especially when NTA deployed a mobile application to ensure proper coordination. Somehow, despite the Supreme Court’s criticism, it seems like things haven’t improved. While the exact details of how and where the NTA’s fortress was breached in 2026 are not public, the involvement of professors and tutors with alleged NTA connections is concerning. The CBI’s arrest of a professor who had been roped in by the NTA as an expert presents a sobering reality. Equally concerning is the alleged involvement of the coaching institutions, directly or indirectly, in this scandal. This only accentuates the need for enforcement of strict standards for employees and officers while discharging their duties.
Committee Recommendations: Implementation in Limbo
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India assumes manifold importance even in 2026, not because the Apex Court laid down twin test criteria. Everything aside, the judgment is pivotal because the Court had demarcated the remit of the K. Radhakrishnan Committee, constituted to propose reforms in the NTA.
The Committee accordingly submitted its report with 101 suggestions to the Government around October 2024. Among its principal recommendations were the establishment of an empowered governing body for NTA, creation of specialised divisions for examination security and surveillance, adoption of secure technological infrastructure, development of standardised testing centres across the country, implementation of robust cyber-security measures, continuous capacity building of examination personnel, and constitution of a High-Powered Steering Committee to oversee implementation of these reforms. However, the conduct of NEET 2026 does not publicly reflect the implementation of several of the Committee’s most significant recommendations. Amongst many things, the Committee recommended an examination in a multi-phased computer-assisted secure PPT model instead of pen-and-paper mode. The Committee also suggested gradually phasing out contractual staff and replacing them with permanent employees. It further advocated the development of at least 1,000 secure Standard Testing Centres across the country, particularly in government institutions, with uniform infrastructure and enhanced surveillance mechanisms. The Committee also recommended computer-assisted secure printing to eliminate vulnerabilities during the printing, storage and transportation of question papers, as well as multi-layer candidate authentication through Aadhaar, biometrics and AI-assisted verification to prevent impersonation and organised malpractice. Despite all the talk of incorporating the suggestions, NEET was conducted in the usual pen-and-paper format.
One of the objectives of the Committee, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav, was to establish a transparent communication strategy to keep all stakeholders informed about the measures taken to ensure the integrity and fairness of the examination process. The least the Government can do is to inform the public what progress has been made vis-à-vis the Committee’s recommendations. The issue of implementation was specifically addressed before the Supreme Court in FAIMA v. National Testing Agency & Ors., wherein an affidavit was filed outlining the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee. However, the extent to which these recommendations have actually been implemented remains unclear. Significantly, in response to an RTI application filed by India Today, the NTA stated that it does not possess a finalised and consolidated document indicating the implementation status of each of the 101 recommendations made by the K. Radhakrishnan Committee. This makes it difficult to ascertain the extent to which the Committee’s recommendations have been implemented.
Concluding Remarks:
Although NTA, in the aftermath of the paper leak, took certain welcome measures, which inter alia include the launch of capacity-building programmes for the examination officials, dedicated portal to register suspicious claims, it needs to look beyond the ad hoc measures. The Government needs to address not only the concerns with the paper leaks but also the larger malaise that has percolated deep into the system – the non-responsive educational framework, the annual extravaganza of the entrance examinations, and the coaching industry that sells dreams.
While the Government has now constituted another committee headed by Nandan Nilekani to recommend the next phase of national examination reforms, the experience following the K. Radhakrishnan Committee demonstrates that the constitution of committees alone is insufficient. The real challenge lies in the timely and effective implementation of their recommendations. Unless the recommendations are translated into concrete institutional reforms, the recurrence of similar issues is likely to undermine public confidence in the examination process. The Government cannot afford to slide its future generation into eternal despair. Amongst the herculean tasks, nothing is more important than restoring the faith of the students in the system. The task that extends beyond 21st June!
