6 min readJul 27, 2026 02:50 PM IST First published on: Jul 27, 2026 at 02:50 PM ISTIn 18th-century England, picking pockets was punishable by death. Even when the offender was being hanged, there were sharpers ready to pick the pockets of spectators at the scene of the execution. This shows how “effective” the penalty death has been as a deterrent. If the death penalty cannot deter, no other punishment can. In response to the large number of paper leaks over the last decade, the NDA government has introduced a bill to enhance punishments to seven years’ imprisonment and a Rs 10 crore fine for those involved in organised paper leaks. But what deters is not the intensity of the punishment, but the certainty that it will be meted out.Recently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) gave a clean chit to Sanjeev Mukhiya, the main accused in the 2024 NEET paper leak. In the age of WhatsApp and email, where distance does not matter, the Supreme Court’s order was strange: Since the leak was localised, no retest was required. NEET also has several other structural problems that have not been sufficiently discussed either by the protesters or in the broader public conversation. Do NEET and other such examinations really test merit? Are centralised tests student-friendly? Isn’t over-centralisation and the excessive involvement of contracted agencies problematic? Isn’t the selection of paper-setters, moderators and even test centres highly subjective, at times a function of ideological leanings rather than objective criteria?Law-making is the lowest hanging fruit for a parliamentary democracy in contexts such as the present one.AdvertisementThe first Indian law on paper leaks was enacted by the British in 1937 in the Central Provinces and was based on the Burmese law on the subject. In 2024, a few months before the Lok Sabha elections, the current law was enacted with huge expectations as a solution to paper leaks. The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 did provide for a minimum of three years’ imprisonment, which could go up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 lakh. Organised paper leaks already carry a prison term of five to 10 years with a fine of Rs 1 crore. This law and similar ones in states have failed to ensure fairness in public examinations and prevent paper leaks.Also Read | Jantar Mantar taught us what democracy means, beyond electionsAs many as nine states have enacted laws on similar lines. The Uttarakhand law of 2023 provides a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment, which may extend to life imprisonment. It also provides for special courts and confiscation of property. In 2023, the new Jharkhand law provided for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 crore. The Uttar Pradesh law of 2024 is equally stringent: It provides for 14 years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10 to 25 lakh. On repeat offences, it prescribes life imprisonment and a Rs 50 lakh to Rs 1 crore fine.Stringent laws, it is clear, won’t solve the problem of integrity of public examinations. We need to come up with out-of-the-box solutions.AdvertisementNEET was initially struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in Christian Medical College, Vellore (2013) by a 2:1 majority. In 2016, not only was a review of this judgment allowed, but the dissenting judge of the 2013 judgment, Justice Anil Dave, made NEET compulsory even prior to a full hearing by the constitution bench. It is ironic that while in all other areas, we are promoting deregulation, in the case of education, over-centralisation is becoming a harsh and painful reality.Are NEET or other such tests really student-friendly? Since most coaching centres are in cities, poorer students from rural backgrounds and those who have studied in the vernacular medium are at a disadvantage. We cannot overlook the benefits of multiple tests: If students fall ill or have not done well in one test, they will still have a chance to qualify in another without losing a year. Some of the top doctors today were selected through multiple tests. Second, it gives a student the right to select an institution of his choice. Third, due to repeated paper leaks, students and parents do not have much confidence in NEET’s fairness and transparency. Finally, there is the issue of wrong translation. In the 2018 NEET, as many as 49 questions in the Tamil translation had errors, leading to a Madras High Court order awarding four marks for each of the wrongly translated questions, or 196 marks to all 1.07 lakh candidates of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court overruled this order as the High Court had arbitrarily ordered giving grace marks to everyone without examining whether the student even attempted such a question.you may likeNEET is considered the best option as it supposedly promotes merit. But is there a consensus on what merit really means? British sociologist Michael Dunlop Young’s book, The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958), popularised a particular notion. Meritocracy requires competition and equality of opportunity. Can we say with confidence that a multidimensional construct of merit can be adequately, if not accurately, measured through NEET, JEE or CLAT? When NEET and other such admission tests do not meet this fundamental criterion, competition cannot be termed as fair and just, and the equality of opportunity promised by the Constitution becomes illusory.There is substantial scholarship that argues that common admission tests cannot measure abilities that are essential for learning, such as imagination, curiosity and motivation. NEET neither includes any question on any of these aspects nor does it accurately test a candidate’s acumen and aptitude to become a doctor. Empirical research in the United States on standardised common tests has found that they are biased against the poorer and underprivileged sections of the population, women and minorities. Thus, there is an element of class in the examination. NEET is not neat because it merely eliminates and does not select the best.The writer is the vice-chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Views are personal