Discuss the governance failures exposed by the 2024 NEET-UG controversy and evaluate whether a shift to Computer-Based Testing addresses the root causes of examination malpractice in India.

The 2024 NEET-UG paper-leak controversy, involving lakhs of medical aspirants, forced the Union Government to constitute a High-Level Committee of Experts under former ISRO Chairman Dr. K. Radhakrishnan [1] — an admission that the failure was institutional, not merely criminal.

Governance failures exposed

• Capacity deficit in the NTA: an agency conducting mass examinations without commensurate permanent staffing, standard operating procedures or independent audit; the Radhakrishnan Committee recommended structural reform of question-paper setting, translation, printing and logistics [2].
• Weak physical chain of custody: leaks traced to the transport and storage of paper question booklets, the classic vulnerability of the offline mode [2].
• Outsourcing without accountability: private service providers handled sensitive functions with weak debarment consequences under the original law [3].
• Deterrence gap: the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 covered NTA examinations but carried a 3–5 year minimum sentence and a four-year debarment, later found inadequate [3][4].
• Opaque grievance redressal: delayed disclosure and shifting official positions eroded candidate trust [2].

Does CBT address the root causes? Strengths: CBT eliminates the printed paper's transport chain, permits encrypted last-minute delivery, multi-session randomised question banks and biometric verification — directly closing the 2024 leak route [2]. The Centre has told the Supreme Court that a single-stage or JEE-style two-stage CBT is under active consideration, pending the Nandan Nilekani-led task force [5].

Limits: CBT shifts risk from paper to cyberspace — server breaches, insider database access and remote-access fraud. It cannot cure impersonation, coaching-syndicate collusion or centre-level connivance. For a candidate pool far larger than JEE's, centre infrastructure and the rural digital divide raise equity concerns. Normalisation across sessions also invites fairness disputes.

CBT is therefore a necessary hardening of the delivery layer, not a substitute for institutional reform. Sustainable integrity requires an adequately staffed, audited NTA, strict enforcement of the enhanced penalties and eight-year debarment under the 2026 Amendment [4], phased CBT rollout with equity safeguards, and transparent redressal — so that examination governance upholds the equality of opportunity promised by Article 16.