Every year, millions of Indian students put their future in the hands of the National Testing Agency (NTA).
The government body conducts some of India's biggest competitive examinations, including NEET (for medical college admissions), JEE (for engineering admissions), CUET (for university admissions), and UGC-NET (for teaching jobs).
Since its establishment in 2018, NTA has conducted more than 270 examinations and handled over 6.6 crore candidate registrations.
In 2026 alone, the agency has already conducted 12 examinations involving more than 65 lakh registrations.
Together, these findings raise questions not only about individual examination failures but also about the institutional systems responsible for safeguarding the country's largest entrance examinations.
(The Quint has consistently reported on the crisis in Indian education. Help us do more such stories by becoming a member.)
Every year, millions of Indian students put their future in the hands of the National Testing Agency (NTA). The government body conducts some of India's biggest competitive examinations, including NEET (for medical college admissions), JEE (for engineering admissions), CUET (for university admissions), and UGC-NET (for teaching jobs). Since its establishment in 2018, NTA has conducted more than 270 examinations and handled over 6.6 crore candidate registrations. In 2026 alone, the agency has already conducted 12 examinations involving more than 65 lakh registrations.
NTA describes its mandate in ambitious terms. It states that its objective is to conduct examinations that are "valid, reliable, efficient, transparent, fair" and ensure that "the right candidates" reach "the best institutions."
However, information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, responses provided in Parliament, and findings of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports present a very different picture of the agency's functioning. The records point towards deeper governance concerns — the governing board that does not meet frequently, limited transparency in the implementation of statutory mechanisms to prevent unfair means and examination fraud, significant vacancies in sanctioned posts, and inconsistencies between information provided by NTA and facts recorded by Parliament.
Together, these findings raise questions not only about individual examination failures but also about the institutional systems responsible for safeguarding the country's largest entrance examinations.
