Letters to The Editor — July 24, 2026

‘Don’t waste our time’

It is unfortunate that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) — whose reference to a section of the youth as “cockroaches” sparked a movement that has since grown into mass protests and reached Parliament’s doorstep — said that he was not interested in watching videos of alleged police brutality against protesters and urged the petitioner not to waste the Court’s time (“‘Don’t waste our time’: CJI declines to take cognisance of ‘police violence’”, July 23). His refusal to review evidence of alleged state excesses raises questions about judicial accountability and the Court’s willingness to address human rights concerns. Since the protesting coalition calls itself the “Cockroach Janta Party” in response to the CJI’s controversial remark, some may view the Bench’s reluctance to engage with the matter through that lens. However, regardless of the personal or political context, the gravity of the allegations warrants an immediate hearing. The CJI should reconsider his position and fulfil his constitutional duty by examining the claims of alleged state excesses.

R. Sivakumar,

Chennai

The immense stress and anxiety inflicted on millions of students and parents seem to have been met with bureaucratic deflection rather than ministerial accountability. When youth-led grievances are met with tear gas and political deflections instead of genuine dialogue, youth distrust with our democratic system is inevitable.

Shobana Ravi,

Bengaluru

The recent protest by students at Jantar Mantar, supported by civil society organisations and several Opposition leaders, reflects a frustration that extends far beyond NEET or a single examination. While recent controversies have brought national attention to medical entrance examinations, the uncomfortable reality is that the problem is far deeper. India’s examination ecosystem, from school boards to recruitment tests and professional entrance examinations, requires comprehensive reform rather than piecemeal responses.

As someone who has appeared in several competitive examinations, including banking recruitment tests, I have experienced first-hand how even seemingly small administrative deficiencies can significantly affect performance. Main examination centres are often allotted in remote locations, compelling candidates to undertake long and exhausting journeys before high-stakes tests. At times, candidates have reported malfunctioning keyboards, faulty computer peripherals, or inadequate infrastructure. Even when such issues are raised, they are not always formally acknowledged. Competitive examinations lasting only a few hours leave no scope for recovering lost time caused by technical failures.

Beyond logistics lies an even larger concern: the increasing dependence on coaching. Whether one considers banking examinations, management entrance tests like the CAT, or several other national-level recruitment examinations, the perception among many aspirants is that success increasingly depends on mastering coaching-specific techniques rather than on demonstrating conceptual understanding. Coaching institutes have become parallel education systems, making quality preparation disproportionately expensive for students from modest backgrounds.

School education too has witnessed structural distortions. Over the years, board examination scores have risen dramatically. Marks once considered exceptional have become increasingly common, reducing their ability to distinguish academic performance. Grade inflation may appear encouraging on paper, but it creates unintended consequences when admissions to premier institutions rely heavily on these scores.

The experience of the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) system introduced by CBSE in the early 2010s also offers important lessons. The objective of holistic assessment was commendable, but implementation often varied widely across schools. Internal assessments depended substantially on teacher discretion, resulting in concerns about inconsistency and subjectivity. Many students who excelled under internal assessment later struggled in higher classes where evaluation became more standardised, suggesting that assessment methods deserve continuous review.

Another issue that received relatively little attention at the time involved examination security. In certain cases, question papers carrying identical codes were reportedly used across different schools on different dates, creating opportunities for papers to circulate informally before subsequent examinations. Even isolated instances of such practices undermine confidence in the fairness of public examinations and demonstrate why robust safeguards are essential.

Recruitment examinations also deserve greater transparency. Exam-conducting bodies should publish detailed statistical reports on normalisation methods, cutoff calculations, attendance patterns, and technical complaints received during examinations. Independent third-party audits of examination software, hardware and logistics should become standard practice rather than exceptional measures.

The debate should therefore not remain confined to NEET. It should encompass every major examination conducted in India—recruitment tests, entrance examinations and board assessments alike. A flawed examination system affects not merely individual careers but public trust itself. Merit can flourish only when every candidate is confident that the examination measures ability rather than endurance, access to coaching or administrative luck.

India produces some of the world’s brightest young minds. They deserve an examination system that rewards talent through fairness, transparency and consistency—not one that repeatedly leaves honest candidates questioning whether effort alone is enough.

Aditya Das,

Bhowali, Uttarakhand