House Panel on Education Recommends Reforms Across Testing, Accreditation

NTA's Examination Woes and NAAC's Credibility Questioned: House Panel Calls for Sweeping Educational Reforms

On December 10, 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education delivered its 371st report, making pointed observations about the dysfunction in India’s higher education machinery. Irregularities in exams conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) — delays, errors in NEET-UG, CUET, and JEE (Main), and lapses in digital testing protocols — were termed “avoidable” by the report. Further scrutiny was directed at gaps in faculty recruitment and the credibility of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), which faces allegations of opaque accreditation practices. The recommendations are decisive but raise larger structural questions about governance and institutional accountability.

Breaking the Pattern: What Goes Beyond Routine Criticism

What distinguishes this report is its scope. Unlike earlier Parliamentary discussions that largely echoed concerns about budgetary allocations, this report moves deeper, targeting systemic inefficiencies affecting both quality and autonomy. By naming specific bodies — the NTA for its failures in digital examinations and NAAC for inconsistent accreditation processes — it sets precedence for accountability at the granular level. Most notably, the emphasis on objectivity in the accreditation process suggests a break from earlier patchwork fixes that ignored NAAC's inherent weaknesses.

Another sharp deviation lies in the recommendation for the Basic Accreditation Framework (BAF) coupled with Maturity Based Graded Levels (MBGL), an attempt to shift from reliance on subjective evaluation parameters. This shift, if implemented effectively, could signal the end of a discretionary era for higher education institutions seeking yardsticks of credibility. However, a deeper analysis unveils the friction between the draft UGC regulations and state autonomy, thereby complicating the matters surrounding governance.

The Machinery Behind the Specific Concerns

At the core of this critique lies the NTA’s inability to secure the integrity of examinations. The Parliamentary report flagged serious lapses in outsourcing exam logistics, urging the formulation of a national blacklist of paper-setting firms. This institutional scrutiny is fueled by repeated errors. For example, NEET-UG reported a postponement affecting nearly 17 lakh aspirants, CUET experienced technical glitches in nearly 50 percent of its examination centers in June 2025, and JEE (Main) saw complaints of question paper discrepancies. These patterns undermine the credibility of digital and outsourced models.

On another front, the report placed accountability on NAAC. It questioned the opacity in accreditation scores disbursed to higher education institutions, a problem compounded by recent revelations of irregularities in rating processes. The report’s insistence on Maturity Graded Levels aims to establish standard checks across institutions—a framework that would operate under tighter rules, optimistically limiting discretion.

Equally important are the reforms suggested for faculty management in UGC institutions. Of nearly 30,000 faculty positions sanctioned across central universities, 42% remain vacant. Moreover, UGC’s policy of linking distance education approvals to NAAC scores has delayed the implementation of online learning models under NEP 2020. The report strongly advocates a reassessment of these restrictions, urging the University Grants Commission to embrace a competitive ecosystem rather than penalizing lower NAAC ranks.

Numbers Against the Narrative

Despite its aspirational tone, there is a stark mismatch between policy ambition and administrative execution. Take the multiple entry and exit programs proposed under NEP 2020. While 11 central universities have formally adopted the program, UGC data shows implementation has barely expanded beyond the pilot phase with only 340 students enrolled nationally. Similarly, proposed seed grants for faculty initiatives remain locked in bureaucratic delays. The Committee also called out the absence of 7th Pay Commission benefits for researchers under ICSSR institutes, a recurring pattern of sidelining academic personnel despite flashy policy banners.

The reforms aimed at NTA align poorly with fiscal realities. Digital examination systems remain underfunded by nearly ₹450 crore, according to Ministry budget estimates from FY 2021–25. Without bridging resource gaps, proposals to shift back to pen-and-paper testing or bolster in-house capacity appear half-hearted.

Uncomfortable Questions Confront the Road Ahead

The tension between central initiatives and regional autonomy is an obvious friction point. The suggestion to involve the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) in the draft UGC regulations reflects awareness of this issue but stops short of providing actionable solutions. How will state universities governed by politically distinct boards adapt without institutional resistance?

Equally concerning is the lack of clarity on regulating the prolific growth of coaching centers. While the report mentions aligning exam papers to school curricula, it offers no specific mechanism to dismantle parallel coaching economies. The challenge then remains twofold: ensuring fair testing practices while safeguarding curricular integrity—a tightrope walk that has historically failed.

Another elephant in the room is digital access inequality. While the NTA has been hailed for its push toward digitized examinations, the stark urban-rural divide in technical infrastructure poses a serious limitation. Can India replicate the digital examination models of South Korea, where nearly 95% of examination facilities ensured uninterrupted internet during nationwide tests in 2018? Institutionally, the NTA has not shown comparable preparedness.

An International Anchor: South Korea's Precision in Testing

South Korea, an apt comparison given its density of competitive exams and reliance on technological frameworks, overcame similar challenges in 2018. Its National Assessment Office implemented exam-specific regulations involving biometric attendance verification, three-layered mock tests, and state funding earmarked exclusively for digitally equipped centers. India’s lapse, however, lies in decentralized oversight, seen most clearly in NTA’s outsourcing model. Where Korea invested in state-capital infrastructure, India relies heavily on private vendors—a recipe for recurring administrative gaps.

Frequently Asked Questions