Designed to promote transparency in the evaluation of descriptive answer scripts, CBSE’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) system made verification and re-evaluation dependent on access to digitised answer scripts through applications, fee payments, and repeatedly disrupted portals. According to CBSE’s disclosures, only about 11 lakh digitised answer scripts—roughly 11% of the nearly 98 lakh scripts generated in the Class XII examination—were made available to around four lakh students by the end of May. Only these students became eligible for verification and subsequent re-evaluation.

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

For most students, meaningful access to the review process remained unavailable due to recurring portal outages, payment gateway failures, and procedural hurdles. The situation became serious enough for the Minister of Education to intervene at the highest levels to address these issues. Yet, despite acknowledged operational difficulties and notified concerns regarding digitisation and evaluation, no comparable relief was provided to students unable to access their answer scripts.

Even after technical assistance from IIT teams to stabilise the OSM infrastructure, the improvement remained limited. CBSE data show that only about 1.6 lakh students ultimately submitted verification requests covering nearly 3.8 lakh answer scripts, despite the examination involving approximately 17.7 lakh students and 98 lakh answer scripts. Thus, fewer than 10% of students and barely 4% of answer scripts entered the review process.

The consequences were significant because re-evaluation was permitted only after verification. Students who could not obtain their answer scripts or complete verification within the prescribed timelines were effectively excluded from re-evaluation through no fault of their own.

Amid acknowledged discrepancies, reported irregularities in digitisation and evaluation, and repeated operational failures, a fundamental question arises: was the OSM process designed to maximize transparency and corrective action, or did its structure inadvertently deny most students a meaningful opportunity to verify and challenge their evaluated answer scripts?

What are the key flaws in the OSM-2026 model compared with the earlier PnP model?

In the earlier Pen-and-Paper (PnP) model, access to answer scripts was on demand, and verification and re-evaluation were concurrent. Verification checked whether all answers were evaluated, marks correctly transferred, and totals accurately computed, while re-evaluation involved independent reassessment of specific answers.

In the OSM model, answer scripts are already digitised and should ideally be available to students without any application or fee payment. The traditional verification process is largely unnecessary. Instead, OSM verification focuses on seven notified digitisation-related errors, such as blurred scans, missing pages, omitted supplementary sheets, missing graphs/maps, wrong answer scripts, or evaluation against an incorrect question set. Since these errors must first be corrected, re-evaluation should logically follow verification, not run concurrently with it.

CBSE appears to have overlooked this fundamental distinction. By requiring students to separately seek and pay for access and verification, while simultaneously opening re-evaluation requests, the process became structurally flawed. Portal glitches and heavy traffic further aggravated the situation—much of which stemmed from students being compelled to submit applications and make payments for services that, under a fully digitised OSM framework, should have been freely and seamlessly available.

What was the impact of CBSE’s OSM process design?

The impact was substantial. Of nearly 98 lakh answer scripts generated in the Class XII examination, only about 11 lakh scripts (around 11%) belonging to about four lakh students were reportedly disclosed. Thereafter, only about 1.6 lakh students—fewer than 10% of the 17.7 lakh candidates—ultimately reached the verification stage.

Since verification depended on access to answer scripts, and re-evaluation could be sought only after verification, millions of answer scripts effectively remained outside the review process. As a result, a large majority of students were unable to verify or challenge their evaluated answer scripts, largely because access itself became constrained by portal disruptions, procedural barriers, and delayed disclosure.

Did OSM promote transparency or restrict It?

OSM was intended to enhance transparency, but access to answer scripts, verification, and re-evaluation depended on applications, fees, portal access, and strict timelines. Since each stage depended on successful completion of the previous one, failures in access, payments, or verification effectively blocked re-evaluation. As a result, transparency became available only to a limited subset of students rather than by default to all.

A simpler approach—proactive disclosure of digitised answer scripts followed by verification and targeted re-evaluation—could have reduced disputes, eliminated procedural barriers, and extended transparency to every student.

Did portal glitches become a barrier to transparency?

Not entirely. Portal glitches undoubtedly restricted access to answer scripts, verification, and re-evaluation. However, the larger issue was that transparency itself was made dependent on portals, fee payments, and applications, even though simpler alternatives were available. Once answer scripts had been digitised, they could have been proactively disclosed to all students via secure digital channels, thereby reducing reliance on portals and payment gateways.

CBSE has acknowledged recurring portal disruptions, payment failures, and operational difficulties during the OSM rollout. Whatever their cause, the result was that only a small fraction of students could access the review process. The real question, therefore, is not whether the glitches were genuine, but why the transparency framework was designed in a way that allowed them to become a barrier to transparency in the first place.

Were these flaws avoidable?

Yes. The controversy was largely avoidable. The evidence suggests that the principal failure lay not with students or technology but with the design and implementation of the OSM review process.

Once answer scripts had been digitised, CBSE could have proactively disclosed them to all students, provided a brief verification window, corrected genuine deficiencies, and thereafter permitted targeted re-evaluation. Such an approach would have minimised dependence on portals, payment gateways, applications, and compressed timelines.

What was the single most dominant factor behind the OSM crisis?

If a single factor is to be identified, it was the decision to make transparency conditional rather than proactive. Once answer scripts had been digitised, they could have been disclosed to all students by default, making verification and re-evaluation accessible without dependence on portals, applications, fees, and procedural hurdles.

Underlying this decision was a predominantly bureaucratic approach characterised by procedural rigidity and administrative constraints rather than an academic approach to process design. While a bureaucratic mindset tends to prioritise procedures, controls, and compliance, an academic mindset centers on student interests, transparency, fairness, error correction, and flexibility in decision-making. Much of the OSM controversy, therefore, appears to stem less from technology than from governance choices that prioritised procedural compliance over student-centric transparency.

Can CBSE still resolve the crisis and restore confidence?

Yes. The answer scripts have already been digitised, and the communication infrastructure is already in place. CBSE can still proactively disclose digitised answer scripts to all students through secure digital channels, provide a brief window for verification of completeness and authenticity, rectify genuine deficiencies, and thereafter permit targeted re-evaluation of identified anomalies.

Such an approach would immediately extend transparency and corrective mechanisms to all affected students rather than the small fraction able to navigate applications, fees, payment gateways, and portal-related hurdles. More importantly, it would eliminate the very bottlenecks that have contributed to the present controversy and demonstrate that OSM’s objective is not merely digitization, but fairness, accountability, and student-centric governance. Even at this stage, a transparency-first approach can help restore confidence in both the evaluation process and the results’ credibility.

The way forward

The OSM controversy should not be viewed as a failure of digital evaluation, but as a lesson in how transparency must be built into the system from the outset. The answer scripts have already been digitised, the communication infrastructure, the simplest being WhatsApp, already exists, and the path to restoring confidence is straightforward. CBSE can still proactively disclose digitised answer scripts to all students, provide a brief window for verification of completeness and authenticity, rectify genuine digitisation deficiencies, and thereafter permit targeted re-evaluation of identified anomalies.

More importantly, future reforms must place academic considerations and student interests above procedural complexity and bureaucratic rigidity. Transparency should be the default, not a service available only through applications, fees, portals, and deadlines. A student-centric framework based on proactive disclosure, verification, and correction would not only resolve much of the present controversy but also establish a more transparent, accountable, and trustworthy evaluation system for the future. It is hoped that wisdom prevails and that CBSE takes timely corrective measures, in the spirit of the Ministry of Education’s acceptance of responsibility and commitment to protecting students’ interests.

(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.)