Rebuilding trust: Can India’s education system keep pace with the aspirations of the world’s largest youth population?

The story begins not in a courtroom, committee meeting or a ministry office. It begins in a classroom. It begins with a student in a small town in Bihar who dreams of becoming a doctor. It begins with a girl in Kashmir preparing for competitive exams despite erratic internet and difficult weather. It begins with a teenager in Kota who has spent two years solving mock papers and sacrificing weekends. It begins with parents in Delhi, Jaipur, Guwahati and countless smaller towns who quietly rearrange household finances to pay coaching fees, buy study material and keep a dream alive.

For millions of Indian families, education remains the most powerful promise of social mobility. And that promise is why every exam controversy strikes such an emotional chord.

In the past few years, India’s education system has found itself under repeated scrutiny. Be it the recent National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) paper leak or inconsistencies in the on-screen marking of class 12 exams. While the incidents differed in nature, they pointed to a common concern—students must trust not only how exams are conducted, but also how they are evaluated.

Taken together, the controversies have raised a larger question: can India’s education system keep pace with the aspirations of the world’s largest youth population?

The challenge for policymakers is not simply to conduct exams more securely. It is to rethink what education itself should achieve. For decades, educational reform in India has followed a familiar cycle. A crisis emerges. Public concern grows. A committee is formed. Recommendations are submitted. Announcements are made. Then comes the most difficult phase—implementation.

India has never lacked ideas. From the recommendations of the Kothari Commission in the 1960s—chaired by then University Grants Commission head D.S. Kothari—to the ambitious vision of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, governments and experts have repeatedly identified the reforms needed to modernise the system. The challenge, though, has been sustaining reform long enough to change outcomes on the ground.

Following the NEET paper leaks of 2024, the government had set up a high-level committee chaired by former ISRO chairman Dr K. Radhakrishnan. It submitted 101 recommendations covering exam security, institutional governance, technology adoption, student welfare, data protection and organisational restructuring. A high-powered steering committee was then asked to oversee implementation.

The significance of these recommendations extends far beyond NEET. They represent one of the most comprehensive efforts in recent decades to modernise the national exam ecosystem.

“It is a phased transition, and in the current situation, that is the right way to proceed,” former UGC chairman M. Jagadesh Kumar told THE WEEK. “The [Radhakrishnan] committee suggested adopting multi-session formats and a phased transition. For this, we need reliable software, strong data security, assured centres, power backup, district-level capacity and better access across regions. The government has already put in place measures to strengthen NTA’s (National Testing Agency) institutional and technological capacities to support large-scale exams. My view is that we should absolutely move towards secure, computer-based testing in our national exam system. But both trust in the system and its preparedness matter more.”

The logic of this transition is simple. Digital exams reduce risks associated with printing, transporting and storing question papers. AI-enabled monitoring systems can detect anomalies. Biometric verification can strengthen candidate authentication. Cybersecurity frameworks can create multiple layers of protection.

Yet, the success of the reforms will be measured not by the number of recommendations accepted, but by whether they restore trust. And trust, say experts, is not built on technology alone. The deeper challenge lies in governance.

One of the most striking aspects of the NEET controversy was that it exposed not just vulnerabilities in exam conduct, but weaknesses in institutional communication. Questions from students and parents lingered without clear answers. Public confidence suffered.

“Every stage of the examination process, from question-paper setting and centre allocation to grievance redress and post-exam review, should operate under clearly defined protocols and timelines,” said Kumar. “The NTA reform process is precisely in this direction.”

Strong exams need strong institutions. Interestingly, India already has an example of this: the Union Public Service Commission exam. Despite conducting one of India’s most prestigious and complex exams—with lakhs of aspirants—the UPSC has largely avoided the controversies plaguing other testing bodies. The Supreme Court drew attention to this during hearings about the NEET controversy.

The UPSC’s credibility was not built on technology alone. It was built through decades of institutional memory, standardised procedures, professional expertise and accountability structures that function irrespective of who is in leadership positions.

But even a perfectly secure system might fail students if it continues to reward outdated forms of learning. India is trying to build a 21st century education system while still carrying the weight of a 20th century exam culture. On one side lies a system that depends heavily on high-stakes tests, rote learning and rank-based competition. On the other lies a future shaped by AI, digital learning, competency-based education and rapidly evolving workplace demands.

Employers increasingly value creativity, critical thinking and adaptability. Universities worldwide are looking at problem-solving abilities rather than simple recall.

The NEP 2020 recognised this shift and the CBSE reforms of recent years are part of this broader transformation. Changes in question patterns have sought to place greater emphasis on application-based learning and analytical skills. There is also a greater use of technology in various aspects of learning. The board’s decision to offer greater flexibility through multiple exam opportunities—two board exams for Class 10 from 2026—is intended to reduce pressure and encourage meaningful learning.

“The direction of CBSE’s reform is unquestionably correct,” said Kumar. “We must encourage students to focus on conceptual understanding and give them greater flexibility. I would describe it as a major reform that requires sustained capacity-building alongside implementation.”

Yet, translating policy vision into classroom reality remains a formidable task. Teachers need training. Schools need resources. Students require support to adapt to new methods of assessment. Parents must adjust to changing definitions of academic success.

For educators working directly with students, this transition presents both opportunity and challenge. “The reforms introduced after the NEET controversy are a step in the right direction,” said Shaza Shahab, vice principal of Manav Rachna International School, Faridabad. “The CBSE’s move towards competency-based assessment is also encouraging because it signals a gradual shift away from rote learning.”

She, however, cautioned against relying on technology alone. “Students and parents do not judge an exam system only by how secure it is. They judge it by whether it feels fair, transparent and responsive when problems arise (like the marking irregularities). The larger challenge now is ensuring that these measures work effectively across a system as vast and diverse as India’s. Regular independent audits, greater transparency around exam processes, faster grievance redress and clear public communication will be equally important.”

Shahab highlighted another issue often overlooked in policy discussions. “As computer-based testing expands, policymakers must ensure that students from different regions and backgrounds have equal access to the infrastructure and support needed to compete fairly,” she said.

If technology-driven reforms fail to account for these disparities, they risk creating new forms of exclusion. This is why experts say that educational reform must balance innovation with inclusion.

The key lesson from recent controversies, Shahab said, extends beyond exam management. “The effectiveness of these reforms,” she said, “will ultimately depend on how consistently they are implemented and how well they address emerging challenges over time.”

Kumar agreed. “The broad reform agenda has already been identified well by the Radhakrishnan committee,” he said. “The NTA is working on it as priority for steady implementation at scale. A majority of the recommendations have been implemented or are in active execution.”

Asked to identify the most important priorities, Kumar pointed to three. “First, complete the phased transition to safe digital exam delivery. Second, develop institutional capability and unambiguous accountability. Third, build trust in the system through transparent protocols, clear communication and responsive grievance redress.”

Ultimately, these priorities are not just about exams; they are about India’s future.

Over the next decade, India will have one of the largest working-age populations in the world. Whether that demographic advantage becomes an economic strength or a missed opportunity will depend significantly on the quality of the education system.