Automation in evaluation systems does not automatically guarantee objectivity or fairness.

Q. "Automation in evaluation systems does not automatically guarantee objectivity or fairness." Critically examine in the context of recent controversies in Indian public examinations. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Automation of evaluation replaces manual handling with digital workflows — CBSE's On-Screen Marking (OSM), introduced for Class XII from the 2026 cycle, scans answer books and has examiners mark them on an online portal [1]. Yet objectivity and fairness flow from process design and grievance redress, not from the technology itself.

What automation genuinely improves - Standardisation: masking of candidate identity, random allocation of scripts and real-time monitoring reduce examiner bias, and digital tabulation removes totalling and transcription errors [1]. - Speed and traceability: audit trails and faster results support NEP 2020's push for technology-enabled, reliable assessment and the PARAKH assessment framework [2].

Why objectivity is not automatic - Garbage-in problem: blurred scans, missing or mismatched pages mean the examiner never sees the full answer; digitisation faithfully reproduces upstream error rather than correcting it [3]. - Discretion shifts, not disappears: marks are still awarded by human examiners — only the interface changes, so subjectivity migrates on-screen. - Rushed rollout: inadequate piloting and examiner training convert a technical upgrade into a systemic failure.

Why fairness suffered - Diluted verification rights: in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) the Supreme Court held evaluated answer-books are "information" under the RTI Act, 2005, open to candidate inspection [4]; a digital system that curtails access weakens this settled entitlement. - Weak redress: portal and payment glitches blocked lakhs of students from even filing verification requests, offending natural justice. - Diffused accountability: outsourcing core evaluation infrastructure to private vendors blurs responsibility, prompting the Supreme Court to seek a status report and the Centre to appoint the one-member S. Radha Chauhan panel [3].

Automation is thus an instrument of administration, not a substitute for it — fairness must be engineered into the process, not assumed from the platform. Pilot-tested rollouts, mandatory scan-quality audits, guaranteed inspection of scripts and enforceable vendor obligations can make digital evaluation both efficient and trustworthy, realising the transparency that technology in governance promises.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. CBSE Circular on On-Screen Marking for Class XII, 9 February 2026 — introduction of OSM; scanning of answer books and on-screen evaluation 2. PIB, "Salient Features of NEP, 2020" — assessment reform and PARAKH 3. Business Standard, "SC flags concerns over CBSE's digital marking system, seeks govt's response" (15 July 2026) — student grievances on scan quality, Supreme Court status report, Radha Chauhan panel 4. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Supreme Court of India (9 August 2011) — right to inspect evaluated answer-books under the RTI Act, 2005