The CBSE Class 12 On-Screen Marking (OSM) controversy has now moved far beyond an academic or administrative dispute and evolved into a politically charged national issue.
What began as student complaints regarding blurred answer sheets, unexpectedly low scores, evaluation mismatches, and technical glitches has spiralled into a wider debate over accountability within India’s education governance system.
Opposition parties have seized upon the crisis to launch a coordinated attack on the Union Education Ministry and the CBSE leadership. The Congress, in particular, has demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, accusing the Ministry of ignoring warnings and implementing the On-Screen Marking system without adequate pilot testing.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi described the controversy as a “calculated conspiracy” against students and demanded an independent judicial probe along with the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT). He alleged that students seeking clarification on discrepancies were being ignored while the government attempted to deflect responsibility. In another sharp attack, Gandhi remarked that the Prime Minister “should have sacked” the Education Minister over the crisis.
Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh accused the CBSE of ignoring recommendations for regional pilot projects before implementing OSM nationwide. He termed the Minister’s continuation in office “shameful” and criticised what he described as a “top-down governance approach” within the Education Ministry.
The company at the centre of the CBSE On-Screen Marking (OSM) controversy is Coempt Edutech Pvt Ltd, which Opposition leaders have alleged was previously associated with or operated under the name “Globarena.” CBSE has confirmed that Coempt Edutech was awarded the contract for the digital evaluation and on-screen marking system used for the Class 12 Board examinations.
CBSE, however, has strongly rejected allegations of wrongdoing. The Board stated that the contract was awarded through a formal tendering process under General Financial Rules (GFR) and that the Request for Proposal (RFP) for digital evaluation was floated on the Central Public Procurement portal in August 2025. According to CBSE, Coempt Edutech emerged as the qualified bidder after the prescribed evaluation process.
Further controversy emerged after reports suggested that CBSE revised certain eligibility and technical norms in later rounds of the tender process after earlier bidding rounds failed to attract technically qualified vendors. Critics argue that these relaxations may have facilitated Coempt’s eventual selection, though CBSE has denied any irregularity in the process.
Social media discussions and student forums have heavily focused on the company’s role in the OSM rollout, especially amid allegations of blurred answer-sheet scans, technical glitches, portal failures, and evaluation inconsistencies. Reddit discussions and online campaigns have demanded greater transparency regarding the tender process, technical audits, and vendor accountability.
The criticism has not remained confined to Parliament or press conferences. The controversy has exploded across social media platforms, where hashtags demanding accountability and the resignation of the Education Minister have trended among student communities. Thousands of students have posted screenshots of alleged marking discrepancies, blurred answer sheets, and re-evaluation anomalies, fuelling a perception that the examination system itself has become unreliable.
Online discussion forums and student communities have reflected intense anger and frustration. One widely circulated Reddit post described the result season as a “catastrophic disgrace” and accused CBSE of “gambling with millions of futures” by implementing an inadequately tested evaluation system. Another viral discussion questioned the meaning of ministerial accountability, with users repeatedly asking: “If he takes responsibility, when will he resign?”
Several posts also drew parallels between the OSM controversy and earlier examination crises, particularly the NEET paper leak scandal, arguing that India’s educational institutions are witnessing a broader crisis of examination credibility. Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal also joined the criticism, saying that the future of lakhs of students had been pushed into uncertainty and calling for accountability at the highest level.
Faced with mounting pressure, Dharmendra Pradhan acknowledged that “some discrepancies” existed in the OSM system and stated publicly that he was taking responsibility for the glitches. He assured students that irregularities would be rectified and warned that “no one will be spared” if wrongdoing was established.
However, the Minister’s remarks did little to calm public anger. Critics argued that accepting “moral responsibility” without structural accountability or institutional consequences risked further damaging trust in the examination system.
The controversy has therefore become emblematic of a deeper crisis within India’s educational governance architecture — where technological reforms are introduced aggressively, but accountability mechanisms often appear reactive, opaque, and politically contested only after public outrage erupts.
More significantly, the OSM row has revealed how educational assessment in India is no longer merely an academic exercise. It has become deeply intertwined with politics, public legitimacy, social media mobilisation, and institutional credibility. In an era where millions of students experience examinations as life-altering events, any perception of unfairness now carries the potential to trigger nationwide political backlash.
At stake is not merely the accuracy of marksheets, but the legitimacy of an examination system that profoundly shapes higher education access, career opportunities, social mobility, and psychological well-being for millions of young Indians. Board marks continue to determine admission to universities, scholarships, competitive examinations, and career trajectories.
Central Board of Secondary Education occupies a unique position in India’s education system. With over 30,000 affiliated schools and millions of candidates appearing annually for Class X and XII examinations, its evaluation practices influence national academic culture. Unlike many State boards, CBSE also acts as a national standard-setting institution. Consequently, any weakness in its evaluation mechanism acquires systemic significance.
The problem is not a singular collapse, but the cumulative effect of contradictory reforms, administrative overload, coaching-centre pressures, and an unresolved conflict between rote-based scoring and competency-oriented education.
The board’s increasing reliance on digital systems has introduced both opportunities and vulnerabilities. Online result processing, digitised answer-sheet access, and technology-enabled assessment mechanisms have improved efficiency in certain areas. However, concerns regarding cybersecurity, data management, technical glitches, and digital inequities continue to persist.
The challenge before CBSE is not merely to improve marking efficiency or examination logistics. It is to rebuild trust in the idea that evaluation can be fair, meaningful, humane, and educationally relevant.
Whether India’s school education system can move beyond its culture of high-stakes numerical obsession may well determine the future direction of learning itself. For now, the political pressure appears to be serving as a necessary corrective. Critics argue that the Ministry of Education has increasingly functioned as an experimentation laboratory where rapid technological adaptation, often justified in the name of scalability and efficiency, risks undermining processes central to academic integrity, evaluation credibility, and educational culture itself.
Comments:
“Digitization of board examinations is not the problem. In fact, it is the right direction. But digitization without due diligence, without transparent vendor selection, and without adequate safeguards for students is not progress — it is negligence dressed up as innovation.
When a vendor with a documented history of large-scale evaluation disasters is awarded a contract covering 18.5 lakh students — without any public disclosure, without transparent scrutiny — and when that system then fails students in precisely the same ways it failed them before, we cannot simply call it a technical glitch. We must call it what it is: a failure of institutional accountability.” — Ajitesh Basani, Managing Director, TSUS, Bangalore
