Barely weeks after the controversy over CBSE’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) system erupted, three developments this week have created an extraordinary contradiction. First, CBSE has announced the Class XII supplementary examination, requiring students to improve their performance even though many might have secured substantially higher marks had they been given timely access to their digitised answer scripts for verification and re-evaluation. Second, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed CBSE to frame transparent, time-bound Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for providing students with their marks, answer sheets, and assessment records. Third, within a month of appointing a new CBSE chairperson, the government reverted him and converted the post into an interim additional-charge arrangement, even as the OSM controversy remained unresolved.
These developments stand in stark contrast to the Union Education Minister’s assurance that no student would suffer injustice — a commitment that inspired confidence among millions of students, parents, and teachers. Yet many students still await access to their answer scripts and an opportunity to verify their evaluation and seek correction of genuine errors. The issue is no longer one of software glitches or administrative procedures, but of whether that assurance has been translated into transparency, accountability, and timely corrective action.
Until every student is given a fair opportunity to verify the original evaluation, requiring them to appear in a supplementary examination addresses the consequence rather than the cause.
CBSE’s circular of June 30 announced the Class XII supplementary examination, permitting compartment candidates and students who have passed the examination to improve their performance. However, it overlooks another category of students — those whose marks may have increased substantially had they first been given access to their digitised answer scripts for verification and re-evaluation.
The scale of the issue is significant. Of the nearly 17.7 lakh Class XII students, only about four lakh obtained access to around 11 lakh answer scripts out of 98 lakh scripts. CBSE stated that about 95% of the requested scripts had been delivered by the end of May, while the status of nearly 20,000 pending requests remains undisclosed. Consequently, nearly 14 lakh students never had the opportunity to examine their evaluated answer scripts independently. Only about 1.6 lakh students reached the re-evaluation stage, and results were declared for about 87% of them.
Even within this limited sample, several candidates secured extraordinary mark revisions, including increases approaching 20 marks out of 60 in highly structured Science subjects, while another student’s History marks rose from 74 to 97. In one widely reported case, a student became the CBSE topper after re-evaluation by securing 100 out of 100 in all five subjects. These outcomes emerged from only a small fraction of students, while the overwhelming majority remained outside the independent scrutiny.
Against this backdrop, asking students to appear in a supplementary examination before ensuring that the original evaluation was accurate and fairly reviewable appears to be premature. A supplementary examination is meant to improve academic performance — not to compensate for possible deficiencies in the original evaluation. Before asking students to take a second examination, CBSE must first ensure that every student has had a fair opportunity to verify and, where warranted, correct the first. That remains the unfinished business of the OSM controversy.
The present controversy is particularly striking because the CIC, while deciding an appeal by a Class XII student seeking access to her 2021 assessment records, identified a clear way forward. Invoking Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC observed that time-bound SOPs for providing marks, answer sheets, and assessment records were “the dire need of today’s scenario.”
It was further observed that such SOPs would avoid the hardship faced by the young minds. It directed CBSE to formulate and publish a transparent SOP, holding that the denial of access to one’s own assessment records was contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act.
Ironically, the OSM framework, introduced to enhance transparency, operated in the opposite direction. Instead of providing automatic access to already digitised answer scripts, students were required to navigate applications, fee payments, portal access, verification, and re-evaluation within overlapping timelines. The resulting delays, portal failures, and restricted disclosure limited independent scrutiny to only a small fraction of students.
The CIC’s recent directions provide CBSE with an opportunity to institutionalise a transparent, student-centric review process. The lesson is clear: transparency must be built into the examination system through well-defined, time-bound, and publicly accountable SOPs — not left to ad hoc procedures.
As the OSM controversy escalated, the Union Education Minister publicly accepted responsibility and assured the nation that no student would suffer injustice. Soon thereafter, the government replaced the then CBSE Chairperson with a new full-time incumbent. Yet, barely a month later, he was reverted, and his appointment was converted to an additional-charge arrangement.
The leadership transition does not diminish the need for institutional accountability. Instead, it leaves several fundamental questions unanswered.
There has been no satisfactory explanation for why already digitised answer scripts were not proactively disclosed, forcing students to apply, pay fees and depend on portal access merely to obtain their own records. Nor has the CBSE explained why alternative arrangements were not put in place after widespread portal failures and payment disruptions became evident, or why verification and re-evaluation windows were opened simultaneously even though re-evaluation depended on prior access to answer scripts. Most importantly, despite expressing confidence in the OSM process, the Board has not opened all digitised answer scripts to universal independent scrutiny. Public confidence will be restored not by administrative reshuffles, but by transparency, accountability and timely corrective action.
The present impasse can still be resolved before the supplementary examination through a simple, practical, and student-centric framework. Since every Class XII answer script has already been digitised, no further scanning or processing is required.
A short, time-bound transparency exercise can ensure that deficiencies in the original evaluation do not disadvantage any student.
Day 1: Universal disclosure: Provide every Class XII student, free of cost, with a secure digital copy of the evaluated answer script through registered email, WhatsApp, and the respective school.
Days 1-3: Verification: Allow students, parents, and schools to verify the completeness and authenticity of the digitised answer scripts and report any deficiencies relating to scanning, digitisation, document management, or evaluation. Students whose scripts are found to be free from such deficiencies may proceed directly to re-evaluation.
Days 2-7: Re-evaluation: After verified or corrected answer scripts are made available, permit students to seek re-evaluation of identified questions or awarded marks. Complete the process within a fixed timeline, publish anonymised statistics on verification deficiencies, and marks revisions to strengthen public confidence.
Such an exercise would be far more meaningful than requiring students to sit a supplementary examination before confirming the correctness of the original evaluation. It would reinforce transparency, accountability, and fairness while ensuring that no student is compelled to take a second examination because of avoidable deficiencies in the first.
The OSM controversy should not end with administrative closure, leadership changes, or supplementary examinations. It should end only when every affected student has a fair opportunity to verify the original evaluation and secure the correction of genuine deficiencies.
In an examination affecting nearly 17.7 lakh students, transparency cannot remain selective; it must become universal.
The proposed seven-day transparency framework offers a practical, low-cost, and time-bound solution. Since every answer script has already been digitised, universal disclosure, verification, and targeted re-evaluation can still be completed before the supplementary examination. Such an exercise would restore confidence in the OSM process while reinforcing fairness, accountability, and student-centric governance.
Ultimately, this is not about defending a technology vendor, an administrative process, or an institution. It is about protecting the academic future of millions of young students. The credibility of India’s examination system will be judged not by assurances, audits, or leadership changes, but by whether every student receives a fair, transparent, and trustworthy evaluation.
Even now, it is not too late to restore public confidence. Universal transparency, timely correction of genuine errors, and the assurance that no student suffers injustice should define the true legacy of the CBSE-OSM initiative.
(Prof. Rajeev Kumar is a former Computer Science Professor at IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, BITS Pilani, and JNU, and a former scientist at DRDO and DST.)
Published - July 09, 2026 08:30 am IST