'Institutional accountability, not ad-hoc fixes, is the answer to recurring public examination failures.' Critically analyze in the context of the NTA and NEET-UG.

The National Testing Agency (NTA) was created as a specialised body to conduct entrance examinations for higher educational institutions [1]. Yet successive NEET-UG leaks — and the Centre now telling the Supreme Court that a shift to computer-based testing (CBT) is under "active consideration" — suggest the statement is largely valid, though technology cannot be dismissed as merely "ad-hoc".

Why the accountability argument holds

• Structural deficits, not medium: the Ministry of Education's High-Level Committee of Experts (2024), chaired by Dr K. Radhakrishnan, was mandated to review NTA's entire examination process, SOPs and organisational structure — an admission that the failure is institutional [2].
• The implementation gap: the same expert's panel later had to review preparedness for the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination [3], showing that accepting recommendations is not the same as embedding them.
• Personnel: heavy reliance on deputation weakens institutional memory; permanent, specialised staffing is the precondition for fixing responsibility.
• Deterrence: the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 penalises leaks and bars errant service providers [4], but enforcement capacity, not statute, is the binding constraint.

Where the critique of the statement bites

• CBT genuinely shrinks the leak surface: encrypted delivery removes printing, transport and storage — the stages where papers are compromised.
• Biometric and AI-based identity verification addresses impersonation, which paper mode cannot fix at all.
• The High-Powered Task Force under Nandan Nilekani (2026) reflects a systemic, technology-plus-institution design rather than a patch [5].

Residual risks

• Multi-shift CBT for lakhs of candidates forces normalisation of marks across shifts, creating fresh equity litigation.
• The digital divide disadvantages rural aspirants unfamiliar with the interface.
• Insiders who set and store question banks remain the weakest link.

Accountability and technology are therefore complements, not alternatives. Sequencing matters: permanent staffing, an independent security vertical, audited pilots and statutory liability extending to agency and vendor staff [6], with technology layered on a reformed institution. Only such institutional ownership can restore the credibility that equitable access to professional education demands.