Pradeep S. Mehta | Trust Becomes the Toughest Test for India’s Young in Examinations

Few public issues have shaken India’s youth as deeply in recent months as the controversy surrounding competitive examinations, such as NEET. The government’s response inter alia includes a high-level examination reform task force chaired by technocrat Nandan Nilekani, the pioneer who had created Aadhaar. This, alongside renewed emphasis on secure, technology-driven examinations, further signals recognition that restoring public trust requires systemic reform.

Yet the anger on the streets was never only about leaked papers. It reflected a deeper concern about whether the systems governing access to education, employment and opportunity continue to reward hard work fairly.

For millions of families, a competitive examination represents an implicit compact with the State to work hard, compete fairly and that the performance will be assessed honestly. Paper leaks, cancelled examinations, delayed recruitment and unpredictable rule changes erode that compact, along with years of preparation, emotional investment and financial sacrifice. Trust, once broken, is far harder to rebuild than an examination calendar.

The government’s response -- the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill 2026, alongside the examination reform task force chaired by Mr Nilekani -- is both timely and necessary. The emphasis on technology-enabled examinations, foolproof systems and structural reforms reflects an acknowledgement that India’s examination ecosystem requires more than just temporary fixes.

The challenge, however, extends beyond examination administration. Over decades, irregularities in recruitment, admissions and other public processes have gradually eroded public confidence, fostering a perception that influence or manipulation can sometimes outweigh merit.

Society, too, has often become resigned to these distortions, treating them as inevitable rather than unacceptable.

India’s democratic journey, however, has steadily challenged that acceptance. Public movements against corruption, judicial oversight, stronger investigative institutions, an increasingly vigilant media and active citizen engagement have raised expectations of transparency and accountability. The present reforms should therefore be viewed not merely as a response to one controversy, but as another step towards institutions where integrity becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Yet even a flawless examination system cannot resolve a deeper structural reality. India must confront the scarcity that underpins its examination culture. When lakhs of aspirants compete for a fraction of available quality institutions and secure public sector jobs, examinations become not only a measure of ability but also a means of rationing opportunity. Under such pressure, every irregularity assumes disproportionate significance and every perceived injustice deepens public distrust.

Rebuilding trust also requires a mature conversation about merit, disadvantage and reservation.

Reservation remains central to addressing India’s legacy of caste-based exclusion, but its implementation should continue to be informed by evidence and periodic evaluation. The concerns of economically modest families in the unreserved category deserve recognition, even as historically marginalised communities continue to face unequal educational opportunities.

The answer lies not in pitting one disadvantaged set of people against another but in improving equality before the exam through better public education, scholarships, mentoring and preparatory support, while ensuring affirmative action reaches those most in need without compromising excellence.

Medical education illustrates why this balance matters. India has expanded medical education, increasing MBBS seats from 1,09,115 (2023-24) to 1,28,976 (2025-26), alongside 86,360 postgraduate seats. Expansion, however, cannot substitute for quality. The Neet-PG 2025 controversy illustrated this when qualifying thresholds were sharply lowered to zero percentile for SC, ST and OBC candidates, and substantially reduced for General and EWS candidates, yet thousands of postgraduate seats remained vacant.

The debate should move beyond simplistic pro- or anti-reservation positions to ask why specialist seats remain vacant despite threshold relaxation. High fees, speciality preferences, geographic distribution and institutional quality require evidence-based solutions rather than repeated procedural changes. Professional competence must remain non-negotiable. Affirmative action should widen access and provide support, but all graduates must meet uniform, rigorous standards so that patients can trust their doctors.

The Nilekani task force therefore has an opportunity to move India from examination reform to opportunity reform. Secure examinations, transparent governance, accountable institutions, equal preparation and rigorous professional standards are complementary pillars of public trust.

Reform must also recognise student well-being. Academic pressure, financial stress, discrimination, family expectations and employment uncertainty often intersect in devastating ways. The recommendations of the Supreme Court-appointed National Task Force on student mental health should therefore inform broader examination reforms.

Civil society, too, has an important role. Difficult conversations about examinations, merit and social justice should not be reduced to ideological binaries. Questioning an admission mechanism is not necessarily opposition to affirmative action, just as defending reservation is not opposition to merit. A healthy democracy must create space for evidence, empathy and reasoned debate.

India frequently speaks about its demographic dividend. Yet demographics become a dividend only when young citizens believe that effort genuinely leads to opportunity. The recent examination controversy is therefore about far more than paper leaks or administrative lapses; it is about preserving the credibility of the State’s promise to its youth. A bridge built on trust can withstand pressure; one weakened by repeated cracks eventually loses those who depend upon it.

The choice before India is not between merit and social justice, but between merely conducting examinations and building a system that commands confidence. A credible education system must ensure that birth does not determine destiny, deprivation does not extinguish aspiration, examinations remain unquestionably fair and professional competence is never compromised.

Ultimately, India’s greatest institutional achievement will not be eliminating every instance of malpractice, but building systems where integrity is routine, accountability is expected, and public trust is sustained by institutions rather than extraordinary interventions.

Pradeep S. Mehta is the secretary-general of CUTS International, a leading global public policy research and advocacy group. Madhevndra S. Pawar and Amrat Singh, also of CUTS, co-authored the article.