Controversies are not new to NEET, though they were rarely acknowledged seriously by the National Testing Agency (NTA), and meaningful corrective action remained limited. Investigating agencies, too, have largely failed to take even major cases — including the NEET 2024 fiasco — to their logical conclusion.

A recurring concern has been the unusually high NEET scores obtained by otherwise average-performing students in school examinations, at times involving multiple members within the same family. Repeated patterns also emerged of exceptionally large numbers of high scorers from certain centers located in major coaching hubs. Yet, such anomalies rarely underwent serious institutional analysis or investigation. Most controversies gradually faded without public accountability, clear conclusions, or closure from either NTA or investigating agencies.

Against this backdrop, the two announcements following the NEET 2026 fiasco — first, a complete re-examination of NEET 2026, and second, the proposed shift from Pen-and-Paper (PnP) mode to Computer-Based Testing (CBT) from 2027 onward — came as major shocks. A full re-examination had never been conducted despite recurring controversies, raising a serious question: was NEET 2026 compromised to a degree large enough to inflate scores across a very large population of candidates?

Yet, re-examination itself offers no real solution. For millions of students battling relentless competition, stress, uncertainty, and psychological pressure, it disrupts merit, preparation cycles, and mental stability. At the same time, re-examinations become commercial opportunities for coaching centers through fresh crash courses and intensive revision modules, generating enormous revenue.

Equally significant is the sudden push to convert NEET to CBT; these efforts are not new, but the abruptness of the decision raises a key question — was this a carefully evaluated reform or a panic-driven attempt to contain a deepening crisis within the existing system?

This article examines these issues in the backdrop of recurring NEET controversies, particularly the NEET 2026 fiasco. It asks whether mere conversion to CBT can solve the deeper problems of an extremely high-stakes examination where every mark — and even tiny differences in the precision of normalized percentile scores — can significantly change ranks and decide medical admissions.

Not just paper leak

A conventional paper leak involves unauthorized access to questions before an examination. Such leaks typically do not include detailed solutions, answer keys, or extra questions. In contrast, the reported NEET 2026 “Guess Paper” reportedly included complete solutions, answer keys, additional questions, and even punctuation patterns matching those of the actual paper. It strongly suggests that it was neither random guesswork nor merely a leaked final paper, but material copied verbatim from the source itself — possibly from question banks used during paper-setting.

If so, the compromise likely did not originate during transportation through printing presses, strongrooms, or examination centers. Instead, it points to a compromise at the source level — involving question setters, reviewers, translators, and others involved in the preparation of question papers. Reports of the circulation of the Guess Paper across multiple cities further suggest an organized network rather than isolated actors.

The deeper concern lies in institutional protocols that allegedly allowed individuals linked to coaching ecosystems to participate in the question-setting process. No AI-enabled surveillance or advanced technology can prevent breaches if the source itself is compromised.

It also remains unclear for how many years such question setters may have been associated with the Agency, or in how many examinations — including NEET, JEE, and CUET — they may have participated. Such concerns naturally extend to the integrity of several past examinations as well.

If the most critical component of the examination ecosystem — the question-setting process itself — stood compromised, concerns naturally extend to NTA’s internal machinery, outsourced personnel, and the mechanisms for selecting, verifying, and monitoring examination centers. Recurring patterns of unusually high scorers from certain centers further raise serious questions about the integrity and oversight of centers that conduct high-stakes examinations such as NEET, JEE, and CUET.

Is CBT immune to leaks?

Question-paper leaks are traditionally associated with PnP examinations, where printed papers move through printing presses, bank strongrooms, regional hubs, and examination centers under layered security protocols. Most known leaks historically occurred during such transportation stages. What remained largely unimaginable, however, was compromise at the level of question setters themselves.

CBT removes the physical transportation of printed papers, but not the question bank. Questions are selected algorithmically from large digital question banks prepared by the same ecosystem of question setters, reviewers, and moderators. If the source itself stands compromised, vulnerabilities merely shift from physical logistics to digital and insider domains.

In such a scenario, compromised question setters may leak portions of the question bank in advance. At the same time, collaborators could identify or leak the final subset of questions shortly before a session. Thus, instead of leakage of an exact printed paper, CBT may enable leakage of high-probability question pools or just-in-time disclosures.

CBT also introduces additional vulnerabilities involving outsourced software vendors, contract workforce, server-side access, cybersecurity risks, and examination center operators. No technology can fully secure an ecosystem if the source itself is compromised.

OMR transparency to normalized CBT scores

In the current PnP format, NEET is conducted in a single shift with the same paper for all candidates, who also receive carbon copies of their OMR sheets for independent verification of raw scores, which are used directly for ranking.

CBT fundamentally changes this structure. Since nearly 2.5 million candidates cannot be accommodated in a single digital session, NEET would require multiple shifts with different question sets. India currently lacks sufficient, secure CBT infrastructure at this scale, especially in smaller towns and rural areas.

Even JEE CBT is conducted in multiple sessions with about 1.5 lakh candidates per shift; a comparable NEET exercise may require 15 or more shifts over several days or weeks. Recognizing this limitation, the Radhakrishnan Committee recommended a nationwide network of secure CBT centers in Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, and universities.

The bigger challenge in multi-session CBT is variation in question difficulty across shifts. Since candidates attempt different question sets, rankings depend on statistical normalization rather than directly verifiable raw scores. Such normalization raises concerns regarding precision, transparency, and fairness, as percentile scores are not easily verifiable; no normalization method can ever be perfectly error-free or universally accepted.

NTA already uses normalization in JEE, where its impact is limited because top candidates proceed to IIT-JEE (Advanced), a single-session test conducted without normalization, while many engineering seats remain vacant.

In NEET, the issue becomes far more sensitive, as even a single mark or small fractional difference in normalized percentile scores can significantly alter ranks and determine admission to highly competitive medical institutions such as AIIMS.

Recurring patterns

Across recurring NEET controversies, similar patterns repeatedly emerged — leaked questions, inflated scores, unusually high scorers from select centres and coaching hubs. Yet such anomalies rarely received serious institutional scrutiny.

In NEET 2024, ad hoc corrective measures reportedly pushed several candidates to full or near-full scores, only for some marks to fall sharply after retests and revisions, raising concerns about the system’s robustness, stability, resilience, and credibility. Despite widespread belief that the examination stood compromised, the full facts never entered the public domain, the CBI closed the matter without any conclusion.

Almost every controversy followed the same pattern: a few local operators were arrested, the matter was projected as “solved,” while deeper institutional or organized linkages rarely surfaced publicly. Meanwhile, the alleged paper-leak ecosystem moved on to the next examination.

Way forward

India’s high-stakes admission ecosystem cannot be repaired through panic-driven decisions, ad hoc measures, or repeated assurances that “all is well” while vulnerabilities remain unaddressed within the system. The opaque handling of controversies only weakened institutional credibility and prevented meaningful correction of loopholes.

The way forward requires carefully designed reforms led by genuine subject experts, examination practitioners, statisticians, cybersecurity professionals, and academic leaders—not merely high-profile committees detached from ground realities. Any transition to CBT must follow rigorous pilot testing, independent audits, transparency, and public scrutiny.

In a meaningful merit-based system, score distributions should naturally exhibit long-tail characteristics. Repeated emergence of thousands of candidates within a few marks of the top score raises serious concerns regarding question quality, coaching-driven predictability, inflated scores, normalization, or compromise of examination integrity.

No technology, AI-enabled surveillance, or institutional hierarchy can substitute transparency, accountability, continuous refinement, and the courage to acknowledge insider vulnerabilities. The real challenge is not merely catching a few paper leaks or small operators, but dismantling the deeper ecosystem of opacity, conflict of interest, and institutional protection that allows such crises to recur year after year.

(Rajeev Kumar is a former Professor of Computer Science at IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, BITS Pilani, and JNU, and a former scientist at DRDO and DST)