Nearly six weeks after the declaration of the CBSE Class XII results, the controversy surrounding the On-Screen Marking (OSM) system remains unresolved. Affecting about 17.7 lakh students and nearly 98 lakh answer scripts, the initiative was introduced to enhance fairness, transparency, uniformity, and objectivity in the evaluation of descriptive answer scripts. Yet, widespread complaints about portal failures, payment disruptions, limited disclosure of answer scripts, and concerns about scanning and evaluation have raised questions about whether these objectives were actually achieved.

(Sign up for THEdge, The Hindu’s weekly education newsletter.)

In response, Coempt Eduteck has defended the OSM rollout by citing certifications, audits, and institutional scrutiny. However, the central issue is far simpler: were students—the individuals whose futures depend on these results—provided a meaningful opportunity to independently access, verify, and challenge the evaluation of their answer scripts?

The available data suggest otherwise. Despite involving nearly 17.7 lakh students and about 98 lakh answer scripts, only a small fraction of students could access their scripts, seek verification, or pursue re-evaluation, leaving the overwhelming majority of answer scripts outside independent scrutiny.

Also Read: CBSE OSM row: Technology vendor Coempt blames manual oversight for answer sheet mix-up

This article, therefore, focuses not on cybersecurity, software glitches, or contractual arrangements, but on a more fundamental question: did the OSM framework deliver the fairness and transparency it promised, or did its design prevent most students from exercising their right to review and challenge their evaluated answer scripts?

Why was proactive disclosure not adopted?

CBSE appears to have departed from its own past practice. During the years when it conducted JEE (Main) and other MCQ-based examinations before NTA took over in 2018, scanned answer records were routinely made available to candidates without charge. Under OSM, all Class XII answer scripts had already been digitised as part of the evaluation process, eliminating the need for additional scanning.

It raises a simple question: once the scripts were already digitised, why were students required to apply, pay fees, and navigate portal-based procedures merely to access their own records? Neither CBSE nor Coempt has explained why proactive disclosure to all students was not adopted, particularly when the access process itself was reportedly affected by portal disruptions and payment failures.

The consequences were substantial. Out of nearly 98 lakh answer scripts generated in the examination, only about 11 lakh scripts relating to roughly four lakh students entered the disclosure process. Even among these, Coempt stated that only about 95% of the requested students scripts could be delivered, leaving around 20,000 students still awaiting access weeks later, without any clear explanation. More importantly, nearly 14 lakh students never received their answer scripts.

Since all scripts had already been digitised, proactive disclosure through secure communication channels would have been both simpler and more transparent. The question, therefore, remains: if transparency was the objective, why was access confined to a small fraction of students, with less than 4% of answer scripts ultimately entering the verification process? Was the limited disclosure driven solely by administrative considerations, or by concerns that wider scrutiny might reveal deficiencies on a much larger scale?

Was the scanning process really robust?

The first and perhaps most fundamental concerns relate to the scanning process itself. The digitised answer scripts consist primarily of handwritten text, diagrams, graphs, maps, and simple illustrations created under examination conditions. Unlike medical imaging, satellite imagery, or industrial inspection systems, such content does not require exceptionally high spatial or radiometric resolution. Even moderate scanning resolutions are generally sufficient to capture examination content with adequate clarity. Consequently, claims regarding higher scanning resolutions do little to address the core issues.

The real challenge in answer-script digitisation is far more basic: ensuring that every page is properly aligned, completely visible, adequately illuminated, correctly scanned, and accurately linked to the corresponding answer-script identifier. In short, the issue is not about sophisticated technology but about process control and quality assurance. Evaluation can only be as reliable as the digital record presented to the examiner; if the digitised script itself is flawed, the integrity of the evaluation process inevitably comes into question.

Significantly, CBSE reportedly identified seven categories of deficiencies, six of them relating directly to scanning, digitisation, and document management. Coempt itself also acknowledged instances in which answer scripts were associated with incorrect candidates—an error that strikes at the very foundation of the digitisation process. Such deficiencies point less to technological limitations and more to failures of operational diligence, verification, and accountability.

This naturally raises a larger question: if such fundamental deficiencies were detected within the limited pool of disclosed answer scripts, did the restricted disclosure of scripts prevent the true extent of scanning and digitisation errors from coming to light? Put differently, was wider disclosure avoided because it might have opened a Pandora’s box of deficiencies and irregularities that could only be uncovered through large-scale independent scrutiny by students themselves followed by re-evaluations?

What about “100% verification”?

Coempt has claimed that its systems were 100% technologically verified and error-free. Yet such claims must ultimately be judged by outcomes rather than certifications.

The claim becomes difficult to reconcile with Coempt’s own statement that only about 95% of students who requested answer scripts could be provided access. If nearly 5% of applicants—affecting around 20,000 students and involving tens of thousands of answer scripts—were still awaiting their records weeks later, how can the system simultaneously be described as fully verified and error-free? When every answer script directly affects a student’s academic future, delayed or non-delivery raises questions about the reliability of the process.

Ultimately, students judge a system by what it delivers, not by the audits it cites. The presence of acknowledged deficiencies, coupled with the inability to provide all requested scripts promptly, casts a shadow on claims of “100% verification.” If even the limited pool of requested scripts could not be delivered completely and without error, can a claim of a fully verified and error-free system genuinely command public confidence?

Has the real test of transparency taken place?

Even now, if CBSE and the Ministry of Education genuinely wish to demonstrate that the OSM process achieved its objectives of fairness, transparency, and accountability, the simplest course remains available: proactively disclose all digitised answer scripts to the concerned students. Any claim that the system is reliable and substantially error-free is difficult to reconcile with continued restrictions on access to the very records required for independent verification.

The reality is that the true test of transparency has not yet taken place. Transparency is established not through assurances, certifications, or audits, but through open disclosure and independent scrutiny by the students whose futures are directly affected. If the system is as reliable as claimed, universal disclosure can only strengthen public confidence; if deficiencies exist, it remains the fastest and fairest way to identify and correct them. In a process affecting nearly 17.7 lakh students, the goal should be that no student suffers due to systemicshortcomings. Yet, the claim of “100% verification” sits uneasily alongside the reported non-delivery of answer scripts to about 20,000 students who had already applied for them.

The question, therefore, remains simple: if confidence in the scanning and evaluation process is well-founded, why not disclose all digitised answer scripts and allow students to verify them?

The way forward

The OSM controversy is ultimately a test of transparency, accountability, and student-centric governance. At stake are the aspirations and future opportunities of nearly 17.7 lakh Class XII students whose academic trajectories depend on these results. In a system of this importance, the guiding principle must be simple: no student should suffer injustice because of procedural, technological, administrative, or evaluation-related shortcomings.

The path forward remains straightforward. Since the answer scripts have already been digitised and the communication infrastructure exists, CBSE can still disclose the digitised scripts to all students, provide a brief window for verification of completeness and authenticity, rectify genuine digitisation deficiencies, and thereafter permit re-evaluation of identified anomalies. Such an approach would make transparency the default rather than the exception, with disclosure, verification, and correction integral to quality assurance.

Ultimately, the objective should not be to defend a process, a vendor, or an institution, but to ensure that every student receives a fair, transparent, and trustworthy evaluation. It is hoped that wisdom prevails and timely corrective measures are taken in the interests of students. Even now, it is not too late to make transparency universal, correct genuine deficiencies, and restore public confidence in the evaluation system.

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