Discuss the institutional weaknesses exposed by recurring NEET-UG paper leaks. Should high-stakes public examinations be conducted by a single centralised agency? Examine with reference to NTA.

The National Testing Agency (NTA) was created in November 2017 as an autonomous, specialised body to relieve CBSE of conducting high-stakes entrance tests [2]. Successive NEET-UG leaks — Patna in 2024 and the 2026 "guess paper" racket that forced a re-examination — have instead exposed deep design and accountability gaps, now under Supreme Court scrutiny [1].

Institutional weaknesses exposed

• Logistical fragility: the pen-paper OMR model depends on physical custody chains; the Air Force had to ferry papers during the 2026 re-exam, which the Court criticised as an "ad hoc arrangement" rather than reform [1].
• Weak statutory footing: NTA is an autonomous society, not a statutory regulator — petitions by FAIMA and the United Doctors Front seek an independent statutory body with clear liability [1].
• Repeat failure despite review: leaks recurred in 2026 even after the 2024 scandal triggered official scrutiny, indicating advisory fixes without institutional redesign [1].
• Technology and data-security lag: the Centre is yet to answer the Court on shifting to a Computer-Based Test and the safeguards it proposes [1].
• Enforcement gap: though NTA examinations fall under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 [3], deterrence remains slow — hence the announcement of fast-track courts [1].

Should one centralised agency conduct such examinations?

• In favour: uniform standards and a single merit list for roughly 22 lakh aspirants; specialisation and economies of scale; one accountable authority under a single legal framework [2][3].
• Against: a single point of failure, where one breach invalidates an entire national cycle; overload, as NTA also runs JEE (Main), CUET and UGC-NET [2]; and equity risks if CBT infrastructure is uneven across districts.

The problem is therefore less centralisation itself than centralisation without capacity or statutory accountability. Centralised standard-setting with decentralised, audited delivery — backed by a statutory examination authority, phased CBT with cybersecurity audits, and time-bound prosecution — would restore integrity and protect aspirants' right to fair opportunity.