Back
FAIMA Questions Need for as Examines NTA's Reform
The has submitted a detailed response before the , challenging the adequacy of the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) compliance on examination reforms. In its filing, FAIMA sharply questions the ’s decision to constitute a new high-powered task force under Nandan Nilekani when the recommendations of the Dr. K. Radhakrishnan-led remain largely unimplemented. The association argues that without full execution of the earlier body’s 101 suggestions, the cycle of paper leaks and ad hoc committees will continue to undermine the integrity of examinations like NEET-UG.
The response, filed through advocate , comes in the wake of the ’s ongoing scrutiny of the NTA’s capacity to conduct leak-proof examinations. During the latest hearing, the Court observed that a dedicated and scientifically equipped body, akin to the , is needed—further intensifying the pressure on the testing agency to demonstrate tangible reforms.
Questioning the
FAIMA’s central contention is the lack of transparency in the government’s decision to bypass the existing HLCE framework. “The said reasoning is important since the students cannot afford to have repeated instances of paper leaks and see a new committee been formed after each year, without the recommendations of that Committee being executed fully by the authorities,” the states. The association points out that the had a broad mandate encompassing reforms in examination processes, NTA’s structure, and data security—mandates later expanded by the following the NEET-UG 2024 paper leak.
Despite submitting a comprehensive report with 101 recommendations on , the committee’s suggestions have not been followed , FAIMA argues. The creation of a new task force under Nilekani, without any explanation for disregarding the earlier panel’s work, raises serious questions about the government’s commitment to systemic change.
Unimplemented Recommendations: A Comparative Analysis
FAIMA highlights several critical gaps between the ’s proposals and the NTA’s . One of the most significant is the failure to transition from the pen-and-paper (P&P) mode to computer-based testing (CBT). The HLCE had expressly warned that P&P tests are vulnerable due to multiple layers of printing, packaging, and transport. It recommended encrypted digital delivery of question papers with local printing at test centres—a method the NTA already uses for IIT-JEE. Yet, the NTA’s remains silent on implementing CBT for NEET-UG.
Another glaring omission concerns the . The recommended an officer-wise and staff-wise record during transportation of papers to fix accountability in case of a mishap. FAIMA notes that the NTA’s fails to provide any such , leaving a critical loophole in the security framework.
On translation, the HLCE cautioned that relying solely on artificial intelligence or machine learning is “not completely feasible.” The NTA claimed it uses AI followed by human verification, but FAIMA points out that unlike question paper setters, translators are not required to sign —a lapse the committee had flagged.
Legislative Gaps: The 2026 Amendment
FAIMA also scrutinises the , arguing that it fails to ensure accountability within the NTA. While punishes certain categories of persons involved in paper leaks, it does not specifically criminalise the misuse of access by paper setters, vetters, and other authorised personnel who handle confidential material.
“In the humble submission of the Petitioner, the Act must specifically address an eventuality where person including paper setters, paper vetter's and other authorised personnel misuses that access by copying, sharing, transmitting or disclosing the material to an unauthorised person,” the contends. FAIMA argues that such conduct, arising from a , should be treated as an “” carrying stricter punishment—a nuance absent from the current law.
Security at Examination Centres: Unaddressed Concerns
The association further highlights inadequate implementation of recommendations on centre selection and security. The had urged local checks, avoidance of centres previously linked to malpractices, randomisation of seating and invigilators, and continuous live CCTV monitoring at multiple control centres. FAIMA asserts that the NTA’s does not fully address these points.
Specifically, the committee recommended strict reconciliation of used and unused OMR sheets and question papers after each exam, with tamper-proof sealing and documented confirmation involving the centre in-charge, NTA presiding officer, and test indenting agency representative. FAIMA says the NTA’s response on this is vague.
A critical vulnerability concerns misprinted or discarded question papers. The HLCE advised that such copies should be secured and destroyed by the NTA itself. However, the NTA’s is silent on any auditing and destruction protocol. FAIMA warns that without direct NTA-controlled disposal of examination waste, other measures like CCTV surveillance may be rendered ineffective.
’s Observations on NTA Capacity
The ’s own remarks during the hearing have added weight to FAIMA’s concerns. The Bench observed that the NTA lacks the dedicated infrastructure and scientific expertise needed for high-stakes examinations, drawing a contrast with the UPSC model. This judicial commentary underscores the urgency of structural reform rather than piecemeal compliance.
FAIMA’s response, filed just days after the NTA’s , sets the stage for a crucial confrontation in the . The association is effectively asking the Court to enforce the ’s recommendations and to ensure that any new task force does not become an excuse for delayed action.
Conclusion
The FAIMA lays bare the disconnect between stated reform objectives and actual implementation. By questioning the rationale behind the and exposing gaps in both administrative and legislative measures, the association has placed the onus firmly on the NTA and the . With the already signalling its dissatisfaction with the status quo, the outcome of this could determine whether India’s examination system finally moves towards a leak-proof framework or remains trapped in a cycle of commissions and paper leaks.
The legal community now awaits the NTA’s and the Court’s next directions, which are expected to have far-reaching implications for the conduct of public examinations across the country.
