NEET-UG | 'Can't Go On Like This, No More Ad-Hocism': Supreme Court Says It Will Closely Monitor NTA Reforms

The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it will closely monitor the institutional reforms being undertaken to overhaul the National Testing Agency (NTA), stressing that recurring paper leaks and ad hoc responses to examination security "cannot go on like this."

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe adjourned to August 3 a batch of petitions seeking structural reforms to the NTA after the Union Government sought time, stating that it was finalising measures that may go beyond the recommendations of the High-Level Committee headed by former ISRO Chairman Dr K Radhakrishnan. The petitions were filed after the NEET-UG 2026 exam held in May was cancelled due to paper-leak.

Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the government was "very serious" about safeguarding the future of students and assured the Court that any suggestions made by the Bench would be implemented without reservation.

"Something is possible that we might go beyond the Committee's report so that it may cover all these things," Mehta said.

While granting the adjournment, Justice Narasimha outlined in considerable detail the issues that the Union Government's comprehensive affidavit must address, emphasising that the focus of the proceedings was not merely on responding to the latest crisis but on permanently institutionalising examination reforms.

Court seeks roadmap for institutional reforms

Justice Narasimha first asked the Union to explain the progress made in implementing the Radhakrishnan Committee's recommendations relating to the NTA's governance structure.

Referring to the recommendation for a governing board, he directed the government to specify the measures taken regarding transparency, appointments and stakeholder representation. He also sought details on the recruitment of domain experts, noting that although institutions such as the IITs, UGC and Kendriya Vidyalayas had been identified, the affidavit did not indicate the progress made in bringing specialised personnel into the organisation.

Justice Narasimha said :

"We will highlight a couple of things we wanted to indicate. We are indicating so that your affidavit addresses. Last time you mentioned about Radhakrishnan committee's recommendations. There is a specific reference to governing board. So your affidavit should indicate what has been done. Please note all these with respective to governing board which would comprise of transparency, nominations and stakeholders. So far as the domain-specific requirement for human resources which is also indicated in the report, there you have indicated that IITs, UGC and Kendriya Vidyalayas are being considered, but it doesn't indicate what progress has been made with respect to domain experts."

No more ad-hocism

The Bench then turned to the broader issue of institutional restructuring.

"We are focusing on institutionalisation. This is the most important. Ad hocism has troubled us the most throughout these years," Justice Narasimha observed.

He referred to the Committee's recommendation for the appointment of two Joint Secretaries, Additional Directors General and specialised verticals dealing with digital infrastructure, testing, research and development, transparency, international collaboration, security, monitoring and vigilance. While noting that appointments had been made in some areas, the Court directed the government to explain the status of the remaining proposed verticals.

"You have seen the affidavit filed, High-powered Committee has been appointed, that we have noted. There is a recommendation for two Joint Secretaries to be appointed and additional Directors for verticals. Ten verticals are suggested one would digital infrastructure, second testing, then research and development, transparency, international collaboration and security. It appears first five, Additional Director Generals were appointed, as for security, monitoring and viligance. Collaboration, you will have to indicate the progress," the Judges said.

Permanent solutions instead of temporary measures

The Court also sought a detailed account of the safeguards introduced before, during and after examinations.

Justice Narasimha asked the government to explain the constitution of testing bodies at the State and district levels, progress on proposals for conducting examinations in multiple sessions, and whether the NTA intended to adopt a model similar to the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE).

The Bench also examined the security of question paper printing and transportation.

When Mehta informed the Court that the Indian Air Force had been used to transport question papers after earlier incidents of paper leaks, Justice Narasimha remarked that such measures could only be temporary.

"For this particular year, because of what had happened, you have deployed the Indian Air Force, but that is only an ad hoc situation. There must be a permanent solution," he said.

Mehta responded that there could not be an adversarial approach when it came to protecting students' futures and assured the Court that the government was committed to implementing lasting reforms.

Computer-based testing, encryption and data security

The Bench also directed the government to clarify its plans regarding the proposed transition from pen-and-paper examinations to computer-based testing.

Justice Narasimha said the affidavit must explain not only whether such a transition was proposed but also the technological safeguards that would accompany it, particularly regarding data security.

The Court also sought details regarding encryption of question papers until they reach examination centres, secure transfer protocols and candidate verification mechanisms, including the possible use of technologies similar to DigiYatra for identity authentication.

"They indicated a transition to computer-based testing so please reflect and tell us. When it's transition to computer-based testing, it is not the physical method by which you will deal, how the data is to be transferred, and how data protection. That is very important. A leak could occur when data is not safe; that is the most important aspect. Another suggestion, when a person goes for examination, there is DigiYatra, how it is to be operated. Encryption of question papers till they are transferred to centres."

"We can't let this go on like this"

Concluding the hearing, Justice Narasimha made it clear that the Court would continue supervising the implementation of reforms.

"We are indicating these issues because we are spending time in the context of institutionalising the system to get out of this cycle. There is a suggestion to shift to computer-based testing. We will monitor this. We will take that extra mile to ensure that the systems are in place. We can't let this go on like this. We will follow it up throughout the year for complete and total institutionalisation," he said.

The Court also directed Advocate Tanvi Dubey, appearing for one of the petitioners, to submit the suggestions made on behalf of the petitioners to the expert committee.

Background