Decoding SC judgement: NEET skeletons tumble, unanswered questions persist

Rajeev Kumar is a former Computer Science professor at IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, BITS Pilani, and JNU New Delhi. He was instrumental in bringing transparency and reforms to competitive admission examinations through his tenacious decade-long efforts (2006-2015), which earned him recognition from the Supreme Court as an unsung hero. LESS ... MORE SC expands Radhakrishnan Committee's mandate beyond min. education's T&C to resolve issues The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2024 fiasco has shaken the country's faith in the premier National Testing Agency (NTA), which has overseen the future of millions of students since 2018 for admissions in several disciplines and study programs. The Supreme Court, in its sixty-three-page-long judgment of August 02, 2024, analyzed the complete workflow of NEET 2024, starting from the question paper setting to examination conduction. Several administrative and procedural flaws existed, such as lack of transparency, security, integrity, audit, technology usage, and responsible decision-making within NTA's examination management. Severe lapses in the security of the examination and question paper compromised the sanctity of NEET 2024. It is alarming that NTA's standard operating procedures (SOPs) did not raise any alerts; instead, NTA became aware of lapses through social media, as per their submission to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the Radhakrishnan Committee to delve and recommend beyond just the terms & conditions (T&C) set up by the Min. Education, Govt. India, to prevent future malpractices and restore public trust. Accountability and administrative lapses The incorrect distribution of backup question papers at twelve centers -- retrieved from Canara Bank instead of the primary papers from the State Bank of India -- raises serious concerns. Who had the authority to collect these backup question papers from the banks' strongrooms? Could any mundane official access them? Was an emergency procedure triggered? Was the Central Control Room notified? These lapses put the entire security of the examination at risk. Upon realizing the error, four centers retrieved the incorrect papers, leading to delays in distributing the primary question papers; the other eight continued using the wrong papers. While some centers compensated by granting additional time, others did not. Were center coordinators authorized to make such independent decisions? Was there a lack of coordination between city and center coordinators, as well as between city coordinators and the central control room? Were these coordinators outsourced personnel? Did the NTA authorize local outsourced staff to make critical decisions on such important issues? These coordinators lacked accountability and may have been individuals of questionable integrity and motives. Was any potential nexus of local personnel employed for examination duty with the coaching institutes investigated? Technical lapses and ad hoc decision-making The NTA's Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) initially awarded grace marks to 1,563 candidates without full examination time, citing a case law related to online glitches. However, another committee later revoked these grace marks and called for an optional retest. Did the GRC thoroughly investigate the circumstances that led to the candidates not receiving the full time? Was there any possible ulterior motive from the center coordinators for not providing the full duration? Did the GRC consider the applicability of the online glitch case law to the PnP exam format? Who were the members of the GRC, and were they qualified to make such a technical decision? Was the revocation of grace marks by the second Committee a hasty reaction to media pressure? This high-powered Committee's decision reflects a lack of coherence and Accountability in NTA's decision-making process. Only half of the candidates opted for the retest; alarmingly, many performed poorly. For instance, a top scorer in the original exam fell thousands of places in the retest rankings. Shouldn't candidates' performance be consistent between the original and retest? Such dramatic variations challenge NEET's claim of merit-based selection and suggest that the process may be arbitrary. The NTA struggled to resolve a straightforward issue regarding a question with one or two correct answers. Initially, their answer key listed only one correct answer. After receiving various representations, the NTA adopted a compromise approach, marking both options as correct. Doesn't such ding-dong raise serious concerns about the NTA's competence in determining accurate answer keys? Eventually, based on advice from IIT Delhi, the Supreme Court reinstated the original single correct answer. Logistical and security lapses NTA's logistics for handling question papers were riddled with flaws. E-rickshaws, which lack security and are vulnerable to theft and mishandling, were used to transport sensitive examination materials. Private courier services were also employed, introducing inconsistent handling standards and potentially compromising security. Allegations also surfaced that center invigilators tampered with OMR sheets. Do these lapses not highlight NTA's inability to conduct a fair and secure NEET for all? Do they not reflect a lack of accountability among officials, possibly exacerbated by outsourcing critical tasks? This situation suggests a troubling mindset among NTA officials regarding their responsibility to ensure the integrity of NEET. Infrastructural lapses The NTA claims to monitor and track most examination tasks using CCTV, GPS-enabled trunk boxes with digital locks, as specified in its SOPs presented to the Supreme Court. However, it's alarming that no alerts were triggered or noticed by anyone in the chain of command, from center coordinators to Central Control, regarding the mishandling of examination materials, including question paper leaks. Most leaks were first reported on social media. Were the CCTV cameras, GPS, and digital locks merely electronic gimmicks? Were the NTA's tech-enabled SOPs nothing more than formalities? Transparency and data lapses As a society, the NTA is not governed by the RTI Act of 2005. Tasked with shaping the future of millions of youths, NTA would have established a legally sound framework to ensure transparency under the RTI umbrella. When directed, the NTA disclosed city- and center-wise raw data on candidates' scores across thousands of files, but the information was not easily understandable to the average person. Instead, the NTA could have used graphical representations, like histograms (bell curves) for each center and city, to highlight outliers and anomalies better. Additionally, NTA's failure to store profile data for candidates who changed examination centers raises concerns about possible manipulation. Is this the transparency commanded by NTA? Are NTA's claims of being transparent merely superficial on paper? There are uncountable such questions that remain unanswered. Until they are satisfactorily addressed through micro-defined SOPs and their truthful implementation and compliance with people of integrity followed by independent audit, the examination fairness and sanctity may not be truthfully achieved. Supreme Court's directions The Supreme Court flagged most of the above in their NEET 2024 Judgement. It cautioned that NTA has no excuse to say the exam was conducted at numerous centers or that many aspirants participated. NTA has ample resources, funding, time, and opportunities to organize exams like NEET without the lapses that occurred this year. The Supreme Court directed the Radhakrishnan's Committee to comprehensively review the NTA's conduction of NEET 2024 to identify vulnerabilities and recommend robust safeguards. In addition to the T&C defined by the Min. of Education, the Court directed the Committee to work in five key areas and recommend appropriately for, 1. Strengthen examination security and administration, recommend rigorous checks at every stage, from question paper setting to result declaration. Adherence to SOPs for registration, city preferences, and OMR sealing is crucial. Exam center allotment be fair and transparent, and candidate preferences be considered. Enhanced identity verification and comprehensive CCTV monitoring to prevent impersonation and malpractice. Secure question paper handling with tamper-evident packaging and reliable logistics. Recommend regular audits, surprise inspections of centers, and a robust grievance redressal system to ensure compliance. 2. Implement data security and technological enhancements such as encryption and digital watermarking to protect examination materials and trace leaks. Suggest regular cybersecurity audits to identify and fix vulnerabilities while exploring innovations such as digital authentication and enhancing overall examination security. 3. Recommend update NTA policies and SOPs to align with best practices for examination security. Establish a transparent communication strategy to inform stakeholders about measures ensuring exam integrity and responses to malpractices. Implement a comprehensive communication plan involving all partners, detailing secure protocols for handling exam materials. Additional measures to address socioeconomic disparities and ensure equal opportunities for all candidates. 4. Explore international collaboration with examination bodies to share best practices and security innovations. Develop a management framework to identify, assess, and mitigate examination security risks, including contingency plans for unforeseen challenges. 5. Recommend mental health support programs for students, including counseling and stress management workshops, to address the psychological impact of exams. Additionally, propose comprehensive training for all examination staff on security protocols, ethical standards, and the latest technologies to uphold exam integrity. The court directed the Radhakrishnan Committee to submit its recommendations by September and the Ministry to decide on recommendations, prepare an action plan within a month, and submit the compliance report for the Court's scrutiny. The above will address the numerous unanswered questions from reading between the lines. The next version of NEET will be much improved; reform is a continuous process. Quoting from another Supreme Court Judgement (2011), "... the selection process requires to be upgraded and fine-tuned year after year with periodic changes in the process so that the selection process and examination remain relevant and meaningful."