बेबाक · Editorial
ୟୁ. ପି. ଏସ୍. ସି. ଫଳାଫଳ, ଏନ୍. ଇ. ଇ. ଟି. ପୁନର୍ବାର ପରୀକ୍ଷାଃ ଅଖଣ୍ଡତା ବ୍ୟବଧାନ ଭାରତ ବନ୍ଦ କରିବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ
ସେହି ସପ୍ତାହରେ ୟୁ. ପି. ଏସ୍. ସି. 13,343ଟି ମୁଖ୍ୟ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ପରୀକ୍ଷା ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିଥିଲା, ବିହାରରେ ଗିରଫଦାରୀ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଏନ୍. ଇ. ଇ. ଟି. ପୁନର୍ବାର ପରୀକ୍ଷା କରିଥିଲା-ପରୀକ୍ଷାର ଅଖଣ୍ଡତା ଏକ ବିକଳ୍ପ, ଦୁର୍ଘଟଣା ନୁହେଁ।
ଦୁଇଟି ପରୀକ୍ଷା, ଗୋଟିଏ ସପ୍ତାହ
ଗୋଟିଏ ସପ୍ତାହ ମଧ୍ୟରେ, ଭାରତର ବିଶାଳ ପରୀକ୍ଷା ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ଦୁଇଟି ପାର୍ଶ୍ୱ ପାର୍ଶ୍ୱରେ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳିଥିଲା। କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ଲୋକସେବା ଆୟୋଗ ଏହାର ସିଭିଲ୍ ସର୍ଭିସେସ୍ ପ୍ରି ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିଛି
The contract at stake
Competitive examinations are the closest thing India has to a fair queue. They promise the child of a daily-wager and the child of privilege the same sealed paper and the same clock. That promise is also brutal arithmetic: last year the Commission shortlisted 14,161 aspirants for the Civil Services Main against 1,087 notified vacancies, a funnel of roughly thirteen to one before the final cut. When the queue is honest, even the rejected can respect it. When fake papers circulate or a re-examination becomes necessary, the contract itself is strained — not only for those accused of cheating, but for every candidate who studied on the assumption that the test before them was real.
Steel-manning both sides
There is a defensible case that the system is, in fact, responding. The Union Cabinet Secretary has warned that the full weight of the law will fall on anyone trying to distort the NEET-UG 2026 re-exam; the arrests in Bihar and the cyber busts in Ahmedabad show enforcement moving against fraud; CRPF and CISF personnel with clean service records have been deployed to escort question papers to centres. Against this stands the aspirant's harder truth: a re-examination is itself a warning that trust has already been damaged, and every breach falls heaviest on those who cannot recover lost time, stolen refunds or the confidence that the process is secure. Both readings are correct. Vigorous prosecution and a high-risk examination environment can, and here plainly do, coexist.
What the record shows
The specifics deserve to be named, because they reveal a pattern, not a one-off. In Bihar, four were arrested for selling fake NEET papers. In Ahmedabad, the city's Cyber Crime Police uncovered two cases: one involving a Telegram scam falsely promising leaked NEET-UG re-exam papers, and another in which a nineteen-year-old from Bihar was arrested for allegedly hacking hundreds of students' accounts to steal their NEET refunds — predation aimed precisely at anxious candidates. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, had to grant relief to candidates for the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service recruitment examination, a reminder that examination disputes can reach the apex court. Set all this against the UPSC's public, verifiable result. The lesson is institutional design, not luck.
The considered verdict
Our verdict is not outrage but reform. India does not lack the capacity to run a transparent examination process: the Commission's 2026 prelims result shows that public, checkable outcomes are possible at scale. What is missing is a uniform integrity standard across the many bodies that conduct entrance and recruitment tests. A system that needs armed personnel to move a question paper, and a re-exam under threat of distortion or fraud, is treating symptoms while deeper risks persist: weak paper custody, vulnerable candidate accounts, and deterrence insufficient to stop organised scams or even a teenager allegedly hacking refunds. Enforcement after the fact is necessary, but it is the most expensive and least just way to protect a student's years of study.
The way forward
The path is known and feasible. Bring every high-stakes examination under a single, statutory integrity standard: encrypted, audited paper-tracking from press to centre; randomised multi-set papers; real-time detection of abnormal score clusters; stronger protection for candidate accounts and refunds; and a public, time-bound grievance process so disputes are addressed by the conducting body before they have to reach the Supreme Court. Adopt openly what the UPSC result demonstrates: transparent publication, verifiable records and predictable procedure. Treat the sale of fake papers, the promise of leaked papers and the theft of candidate refunds as attacks on opportunity itself. A republic that can shortlist 13,343 candidates transparently can also guarantee that every test it sets is worth sitting.
ପୁନର୍ବାର ପରୀକ୍ଷା ଛାତ୍ରମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ ସୁଯୋଗ ନୁହେଁ; ଏହା ଏକ ଚେତାବନୀ ଯେ ବିଶ୍ୱାସ ପୂର୍ବରୁ ଚାପଗ୍ରସ୍ତ ହୋଇସାରିଛି।
ଉଚ୍ଚସ୍ତରୀୟ ସାର୍ବଜନୀନ ପରୀକ୍ଷା ଧାରା 14,19 (1) (ଏ), 21 ଏବଂ 32 ଅନୁଯାୟୀ ସମାନ ସୁଯୋଗ, ପ୍ରାର୍ଥୀଙ୍କ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା, ସାର୍ବଜନୀନ ସ୍ୱଚ୍ଛତା ଏବଂ ପ୍ରଭାବଶାଳୀ ପ୍ରତିକାରକୁ ସୁରକ୍ଷା ଦେଇପାରିବ କି ନାହିଁ ତାହା ବିପଦରେ ରହିଛି।
ପରୀକ୍ଷା ଅଖଣ୍ଡତା ପ୍ରକାଶ ଆଇନ
ସଂସଦ ଏକ ସଂକ୍ଷିପ୍ତ ଧ୍ୟାନ କେନ୍ଦ୍ରିତ ପରୀକ୍ଷା ଅଖଣ୍ଡତା ଏବଂ ପ୍ରାର୍ଥୀ ସୁରକ୍ଷା ବିଲ୍ ପ୍ରଣୟନ କରିବା ଉଚିତ, ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଜାତୀୟ ପରୀକ୍ଷା ସଂସ୍ଥା ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ପରୀକ୍ଷା ଚକ୍ର ପରେ ଏକ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦିଷ୍ଟ ସମୟସୀମା ମଧ୍ୟରେ କାଗଜ ହେପାଜତ ସୁରକ୍ଷା, ଛଦ୍ମନାମ କିମ୍ବା ଲିକ୍ ଅଭିଯୋଗକୁ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଭୁକ୍ତ କରି ଏକ ସାର୍ବଜନୀନ ଅଖଣ୍ଡତା ରିପୋର୍ଟ ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ।
ଆପଣଙ୍କର ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ଅଧିକାର
ଏହି କାହାଣୀରେ ସମ୍ବିଧାନ କ "ଣ ଗ୍ୟାରେଣ୍ଟି ଦେଉଛି?The State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Like must be treated alike; the law cannot be arbitrary.
Fundamental RightEvery citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression — including a free press and the right to know — subject only to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2).
Fundamental RightNo person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law — read by the courts to include dignity, privacy, health, a clean environment and livelihood.
Fundamental RightThe right to move the Supreme Court directly to enforce fundamental rights — called by Dr Ambedkar "the heart and soul of the Constitution." The courts can issue writs such as habeas corpus and mandamus.
Fundamental RightWhat this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନରେ ସାମିଲ ହୁଅନ୍ତୁ।
ଗୋଟିଏ ସମୟରେ ଗୋଟିଏ ନିର୍ଭୀକ ସମ୍ପାଦକୀୟ-ଆପଣଙ୍କ ଭାଷାରେ। ଏହା ସହିତ ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ଅନୁରୋଧ ଯାହା ଅନୁସରଣ କରିବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ |
An editorial is the considered opinion of The Mudda desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions and actors; we do not endorse or attack any political party. "The Mudda's Ask" is a citizen's good-faith policy proposal, grounded in the Constitution — not the platform of any party. Translations are faithful — no fact is added in any language. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →