RISHABH SINGH

We strongly condemn it. Period.🤐

The attempt to manufacture a scandal around CBSE’s On Screen Marking (OSM) system is collapsing under the weight of facts. OSM was first conceptualised by CBSE in 2014, but was deliberately deferred because the technology available then was not mature enough. Over the last decade, CBSE studied global best practices, observed universities and foreign boards successfully using digital evaluation systems, and only after extensive research and approval by the Examination Committee and Governing Body was OSM introduced for Class XII Board Exams in 2026. This was not a “rushed experiment,” but a carefully planned transition. Before implementation, CBSE conducted dry runs, mock evaluations, webinars, practice sessions, training modules, doubt-clearing sessions, and live demonstrations involving teachers from KVS, NVS, state government and private schools across India. Teachers were given unrestricted access to practice portals and trained repeatedly before evaluation began. The allegation that “blurred scans” were simply pushed through is also false. CBSE instituted three levels of quality checks: • During scanning itself • By dedicated QC teams • By evaluators, who were empowered to reject poorly scanned answer books for rescanning Answer books were scanned using lamp/book scanners without cutting or de-threading the spine, specifically to avoid page loss or mixing. OSM was introduced precisely to reduce human error: • Automatic totalling of marks • Prevention of skipped questions • Reduced clerical mistakes • Faster and more transparent evaluation • Greater secrecy and security in handling answer scripts Importantly, evaluators, not computers, assessed the answer sheets. The marking scheme remained exactly the same as in the traditional system. As for the tender process, “lowering technical requirements” is being selectively weaponised without context. Procurement norms are revised routinely to align with available technologies, vendor participation, operational feasibility, and evolving system design. The existence of multiple bidders, including TCS, itself disproves the insinuation that the process was designed for only one company. What makes Rahul Gandhi’s attack even more absurd is that he is now branding COEMPT EDUTECK PVT. LTD. as a “controversial” company and questioning why contracts were awarded to it. But if the company is truly so “tainted,” why did Congress-ruled states repeatedly hire the very same company for multiple projects? The record is crystal clear: • Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Telangana; Agreement dated September 2024 • Bengaluru City University, Karnataka; Agreement dated November 2025 • Adikavi Sri Maharshi Valmiki University, Raichur; Agreement dated March 2024 • Karnataka University, Dharwad; Work Order dated 08.06.2023 • Telangana State Health University even publicly appreciated the company on its official website. So the obvious questions are: Will Rahul Gandhi now accuse Congress governments in Telangana and Karnataka of collusion too? Or does his outrage apply only when the Union Government is involved? If there were isolated technical glitches during a nationwide first-time rollout involving lakhs of answer books, those should absolutely be identified and rectified. But converting implementation challenges into conspiracy theories about “fixing tenders” and attacking the integrity of an entire examination system without evidence is irresponsible politics. The real issue should be improving systems for students and teachers, not creating panic among lakhs of families for political headlines.