How the NEET can be restructured to end question paper leaks

Every spring, India conducts one of the largest and most fraught administrative gambles on Earth: the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG). According to reports, over 2.4 million candidates compete for roughly 120,000 undergraduate medical seats in June 2024, yielding a candidate-to-seat ratio exceeding 20 to 1. When an admissions framework compresses the life prospects of millions into a single 200-minute window, it creates perverse incentives. The result is a multi-billion-dollar test-prep industry that profits from anxiety and a hyper-centralised paper supply chain burdened by a single, catastrophic point of failure. Another aspect is the recurring leaks and systemic administrative lapses that have severely eroded public confidence in the system.

The official blueprint for reform was articulated by the high-level committee chaired by former ISRO chief K. Radhakrishnan. The panel proposed essential governance and infrastructure measures, including a structural overhaul of the National Testing Agency, encrypted digital paper transmission, biometric “DigiExam” authentication, and a state-owned network of 1,000 secure government testing centres. While these are foundational pillars, the core vulnerability of standardised assessment — static question papers —needs to be solved. This is possible by a transition to a fully computer-based testing model and a a dynamic, statistically calibrated question bank.

Constructing this question bank requires empaneling a diverse and decentralised network of vetted subject-matter experts drawn from premier academic institutions, medical faculties, and curriculum boards. They should continuously contribute questions to a central, highly secure repository. To ensure quality and prevent bias, these questions should undergo a multi-stage review process involving rigorous peer validation, psychometric auditing, and difficulty classification, and calibrated using Item Response Theory, an advanced psychometric framework that measures item difficulty and candidate ability. This methodology mimics the gold standard set by premier global exams such as the GRE and GMAT, which rely on extensive, pre-tested question pools to assemble statistically equivalent exam forms on demand. By generating unique, randomised papers for every candidate drawn from a calibrated pool, physical paper leaks become practically impossible. No single question paper exists prior to the exact moment an exam begins.

This calibrated bank enables a two-tiered, on-demand testing architecture. Under this model, candidates take a preliminary screening exam at certified testing centres throughout the year at a time of their choosing. Operating on-demand distributes infrastructure loads across 12 months, eliminates single-day psychological stress, and undercuts the artificial scarcity that feeds predatory coaching hubs. Candidates who pass a predetermined performance benchmark advance to a final selection exam. As this secondary phase operates on a candidate pool reduced by over 80%, authorities can deploy maximum physical and digital proctoring at a fraction of current operational costs.

While the Radhakrishnan Committee correctly diagnosed the need for multi-stage testing and institutional reform, the the critical human element of candidate readiness and rural equity also needs to be taken into account. The report leaves the operational mechanics of digital transition unmapped, but bridging the digital divide requires two explicit safeguards.

Managing the transition

First, every aspirant receives free and unlimited access to an official computer-based testing simulator portal. The mock interface must be functionally identical to the actual exam, precisely replicating navigation tools, palette layouts, options for marking questions for review, and submission protocols. Deployed across public schools, community Internet kiosks, and mobile platforms, it ensures test-taking mechanics become second nature and remove any digital advantage held by affluent urban peers. Second, the roll-out must be strictly phased: in Year 1, the exam adopts a simple computer-based interface with zero adaptive testing or algorithmic complexity. Keeping question formats, difficulty distributions, and scoring rules identical ensures that only the delivery mechanism changes and allows candidates to adapt without facing structural surprises.

By synthesising the Radhakrishnan Committee’s governance and infrastructure model with an Item Response Theory-backed question bank, an on-demand two-tier architecture, and a phased simulator rollout, India can fundamentally reshape the economics of higher education. This unified strategy dismantles the financial arbitrage exploited by paper leaks, relieves the psychological strain of single-day testing, and breaks the coercive leverage of the coaching industry. The technology and policy tools to build such a leak-proof admissions system exist. What remains to be seen is whether India has the institutional resolve to deploy them.

Views expressed are personal

The writer is co-Founder and Vice Chancellor, Rishihood University.