The demand for Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation has turned into a defining political slogan of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests. Alongside calls for the release of activist Sonam Wangchuk and Rs 1 crore compensation for the families of NEET aspirants who allegedly died by suicide, Pradhan’s exit formed one of the movement’s three formal demands submitted to Union Minister JP Nadda before CJP spokespeople met with the government on Friday for a second round of talks.
The demands reflect political accountability and humanitarian relief. But they also leave an important question unanswered: Would the resignation of a minister fundamentally change the way India’s examination system functions?
The question goes beyond one protest and one politician. It goes to the heart of how India conducts some of the world’s largest entrance and recruitment examinations, and whether fixing the country’s recurring exam crisis requires more than a change of guard at the top.
In the wake of the NEET-UG controversy, the Centre has initiated a series of reforms aimed at restoring trust in the country’s examination system. The government has begun restructuring the National Testing Agency (NTA), with around 47 officials reportedly removed as part of the overhaul.
It has also proposed changes to outsourcing practices, tighter oversight of examination processes and the use of stronger technological safeguards to make national entrance tests more secure and resistant to paper leaks.
These measures mark an important beginning, but they are only the first step. The Centre has started addressing some of the weaknesses exposed by the NEET crisis, yet significant institutional reforms, stronger accountability mechanisms and sustained implementation will still be needed to restore confidence in India’s examination system and prevent future lapses.
Yes, there has been some accoutability that has been addressed too.
The Centre on Thursday night had shifted Higher Education Secretary Vineet Joshi to the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, and appointed two new Secretaries in the Ministry of Education. Naresh Pal Gangwar will now be taking charge as the Higher Education Secretary and TK Anil Kumar has been brought in as Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy.
Gangwar is a 1994-batch Rajasthan-cadre IAS officer, who was serving as Animal Husbandry Secretary. Anil Kumar, while, is a 1995-batch Karnataka-cadre IAS officer, and posted as Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Rural Development.
Announcing other reforms within the NTA, sources also saod
A MOVEMENT BORN OUT OF YOUTH FRUSTRATION
Ironically, the movement itself was born out of a much broader concern than NEET. CJP traces its origins to the controversy surrounding remarks about India’s unemployed youth, with its founders reclaiming the term “cockroach” as a symbol of the frustrations faced by millions of young Indians navigating an increasingly uncertain education-to-employment pipeline.
“None of this was planned… this has happened because of the frustration young people have carried for many years. India has the largest young population, and the majority of that young population is out of the workforce,” CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke told India Today while explaining the movement’s origins.
What began as a platform articulating the anxieties of unemployed youth has, over the past few weeks, become largely centred on the alleged failures in NEET, the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the demand for the union education minister’s resignation. Employment-linked concerns, however, have featured far less prominently in the movement’s formal negotiations with the government.
That narrowing of focus is significant because India’s examination crisis extends well beyond admissions to professional courses.
A CRISIS MUCH OLDER THAN ONE MINISTER
NTA was set up in 2017 with the promise of bringing professionalism, standardisation and transparency to entrance examinations. Over the years, however, it has found itself at the centre of repeated controversies, with the 2024 NEET UG row over alleged paper leaks, grace marks and irregularities severely denting public confidence.
But NTA is only one part of a much larger examination ecosystem.
From the SSC’s Combined Graduate Level examination and Rajasthan Examination Eligibility for Teachers (REET) to police recruitment tests, state public service commission examinations and other recruitment processes, allegations of paper leaks, impersonation, organised cheating, delayed recruitments and prolonged litigation have surfaced repeatedly over the past decade.
Different governments, different agencies and different states have faced similar controversies.
Every year, millions of young Indians compete not only for admission to colleges but also for government jobs through examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), banking recruitment agencies and dozens of state recruitment bodies.
For many, these exams represent years of preparation and their best chance at secure employment. When they are cancelled, delayed or mired in allegations of malpractice, the consequences extend beyond academic uncertainty to livelihoods and careers.
The recurring nature of these controversies suggests that the problem extends beyond one organisation or one political administration. It raises a larger question: Is India’s examination ecosystem facing a structural governance problem rather than isolated administrative failures?
“The resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan would certainly be a symbolic victory for a movement like the CJP. It would indicate that the government has yielded to one of the movement’s key demands and, to that extent, acknowledged shortcomings in the conduct of nationwide examinations,” says Dr Murchana Kaushik, a PhD from Queen’s University Belfast and co-founder of Sociology Speaks (a digital initiative focussing on sociology in everyday lives).
“However, how can we be certain that replacing one minister with another would prevent the same issues from recurring?” she asks.
“If that question remains unanswered, the focus has to shift to the functioning of the examination regulatory body itself. The government must ensure that such institutions perform their responsibilities effectively rather than treating the problem as one of individual political accountability alone,” she adds.
ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT THE SAME AS REFORM
The demand for a minister’s resignation is politically significant. In any parliamentary democracy, ministers are expected to take moral and political responsibility for failures within their departments. Calls for accountability often become the focal point of public protests, particularly when confidence in institutions has eroded.
But there is a distinction between political accountability and institutional reform.
A minister does not design encryption protocols for question papers, oversee printing presses, monitor digital security, appoint technology vendors or dismantle organised paper leak syndicates. Those responsibilities are distributed across examination agencies, private contractors, state administrations, cybersecurity systems and law enforcement.
Even within NTA, the conduct of an examination involves multiple layers – from question paper preparation and secure printing to logistics, technology infrastructure and centre management. Recruitment examinations conducted by SSC, railway recruitment boards, banking agencies and state commissions follow their own administrative structures.
A ministerial resignation changes political leadership. It does not automatically redesign the systems through which examinations are conducted.
That raises the central question: If Dharmendra Pradhan resigns tomorrow, what institutional safeguards ensure that the next NEET, SSC or state recruitment examination cannot face similar allegations?
Drawing a comparison with the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC), Kaushik says that examination bodies can regain public trust if governments ensure they function efficiently.
“Until a few years ago, APSC examinations were frequently associated with paper leaks, delayed recruitment, litigation and prolonged uncertainty. Over the last eight years or so, that pattern has changed considerably. Examinations are conducted on time and many candidates who secured jobs on merit testify that the system has improved,” she says.
“What changed was not the examination body itself but the government’s insistence that APSC function efficiently. Since APSC operates under the state government’s governance, the government was fully aware of both its failures and its improvements,” she says.
“Similarly, if there are shortcomings in the functioning of the NTA, the central government must take responsibility for rectifying the system. Merely blaming paper leak rackets is inadequate because such leaks cannot occur without lapses within the examination ecosystem. An independent regulatory body, unless accompanied by strict government accountability, would amount to little real change,” she adds.
THE REFORMS INDIA ISN’T TALKING ABOUT
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the current debate is that while examination integrity sparked the protests, institutional reform has remained largely absent from the formal negotiations.
For years, experts have suggested measures such as independent third-party security audits of examination agencies, stricter oversight of printing presses and technology vendors, encrypted digital transmission of question papers, AI-assisted monitoring of examination centres, stronger cybersecurity protocols, faster prosecution of organised paper leak networks and mandatory post-exam audit reports.
Some have also argued for an independent regulatory framework to establish uniform security standards and accountability across high-stakes examination bodies.
These conversations, however, rarely command the same public attention as demands for resignations.
“The recurring issues across different examination and recruitment bodies indicate that this is not an isolated challenge but one that calls for stronger institutional safeguards across the ecosystem. While each case has its own context, the common priority should be to strengthen trust in the examination process,” says Prashant Jain, CEO of Oswaal Books.
Jain says restoring confidence in India’s examination system would require reforms that go beyond responding to individual controversies. “India should study global best practices in examination governance and adopt systems that strengthen accountability, transparency and security across all examination agencies.”
“An independent oversight or regulatory mechanism can play a vital role by setting common standards, conducting regular audits and ensuring that examination processes remain fair, secure and consistent. Confidence in the system is just as important as the outcome of the examination itself,” he adds.
Political accountability and institutional reform are not competing ideas. One addresses responsibility for what has happened. The other seeks to prevent it from happening again.
The CJP protests have undoubtedly succeeded in bringing education and examination integrity to the centre of national politics. Whether that conversation now evolves from demands for accountability to discussions on institutional redesign may determine the movement’s lasting legacy.
“Three reforms deserve immediate attention: first, standardised security and audit protocols across all examination agencies; second, greater transparency through clearly defined timelines for grievance redressal and public communication; and third, an independent oversight mechanism that periodically reviews examination processes and recommends improvements. For millions of students, the credibility of an examination is as important as the examination itself,” he says.
Because ministers will change. Governments will change. But unless the institutions responsible for conducting India’s entrance and recruitment examinations become more transparent, technologically secure and accountable, the next controversy may simply arrive under a different name.
– Ends
