The lack of accountability within the NTA

On June 21, more than 22.8 lakh candidates sat once again for NEET-UG after a paper leak led to the nationwide cancellation of the earlier exam. The response has followed two tracks. The first was prosecutorial, with the government handing the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The second was administrative, with a re-examination conducted yesterday and the examination fees refunded. However, neither response engages with the question of why one compromised paper can interrupt medical admissions for an entire national cohort, and what that design choice reveals about how the state looks at the costs of its own institutional failures.

NEET-UG 2026 | A collection of explainers and expert opinions

The NTA’s responsibility

The National Testing Agency (NTA) was created in 2017 as a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not through an Act of Parliament, which means it operates without a codified liability standard toward the candidates it examines. When the NTA cancelled NEET-UG 2026, its formal obligation to candidates extended to just carrying forward registrations and refunding the examination fee, which is ₹1,700 for general category candidates. The institutional cost of failure beyond that narrow zone remains unaccounted for.

The design of NEET-UG amplifies that accountability gap directly. The examination is conducted nationwide in a single sitting on one day, with one paper and its score is used for admission across every government and private medical college in the country. And when that sitting is compromised, the state has only one instrument available, which is to cancel the test and convene a fresh sitting without any distributed fallback that would allow a limited breach to produce only a limited effect. Moreover, the interval between application, examination, and result has become a prolonged administrative cycle and every disruption stretches that cycle further while shifting uncertainty onto the candidates. In a system built around a single annual test, even a short advancement can alter an entire admission year.

The National Medical Commission’s (NMC) seat matrix for October 2025 lists roughly 1.26 lakh MBBS seats against more than 22 lakh candidates, a ratio that structurally ensures that a substantial cohort of aspirants are always in their second or third attempt, having already committed resources with no guarantee of admission. For those candidates, the cancellation returns a ₹1,700 fee against a preparation year that costs several lakhs in coaching and accommodation, a gap the state has never formally measured because no government survey tracks what households spend on NEET preparation. The ASER 2024 report documents persistent learning gaps between government and private school students, which means candidates who entered the race with fewer academic and financial resources are also those least able to absorb a cancelled cycle and begin again.

While the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 prescribes penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to one crore rupees for organised leak networks, it establishes no compensation mechanism for candidates when an exam is cancelled; creates no automatic re-examination right; and introduces no liability standard for the examining body. The legislature responded to a candidate-facing catastrophe with an entirely prosecutorial instrument, leaving the structural consequences borne by those who played by the rules entirely outside the law’s concern.

The announced shift of NEET to Computer-Based Testing (CBT) does not resolve this structural problem. For in June 2024, the UGC-NET was cancelled after the question paper appeared on the darknet; the UGC-NET was already a CBT examination administered by the same agency. The leak arose not from printed papers but from a single session with no distributed architecture capable of containing the impact of a breach, which means that moving NEET to CBT changes only the delivery mechanism without changing the single point of failure.

Also Read | NEET-UG re-exam: Telegram app restricted in India at NTA request

The way ahead

Article 14 guarantees everyone equal protection before the law and prohibits state action that is arbitrary in design and disproportionate in effect, while Articles 41 and 46 of the Directive Principles place a positive obligation on the state to secure equal opportunity in education and protect weaker sections from structural disadvantage. A national entrance architecture that formally treats all candidates alike but transfers all costs of institutional failure onto those least equipped to bear them is precisely the kind of design those provisions are meant to prevent.

Three corrections must follow directly. First, the NTA should be given statutory basis with codified obligations to candidates and enforceable consequences for institutional failure. Second, a mandatory compensation mechanism funded from examination fee revenue should activate automatically when cancellation results from institutional failure. Third, multiple examination windows per year would distribute risk so that a compromised sitting does not collapse the prospects of every candidate in the pool.

The re-examination has, for now, closed this episode administratively, but as long as one compromised paper can force 22 lakh candidates to begin again, the problem is not only who leaked the paper, but why the exam was designed to break so completely when they did.

Rahul Verma is a sociologist and independent researcher who writes on education, labour and social inequality in India