Deepak Kumar Rath
In contemporary Indian politics, few issues are as sensitive as education. Any policy affecting millions of students inevitably attracts public scrutiny, political commentary, and intense media attention. It is therefore unsurprising that the Central Board of Secondary Education’s ambitious move to digitize the evaluation of nearly 9.8 million Class XII answer scripts has become the subject of a fierce political debate. What is surprising, however, is the speed with which a complex administrative reform has been reduced to allegations of an “OSM scam,” transforming what appears to be a technological modernization project into a partisan battleground.
The digitization of answer-sheet evaluation did not emerge in isolation. It was conceived within the broader framework of the National Education Policy 2020 and the Digital India initiative, both of which seek to modernize governance through technology. For decades, India’s examination system has faced recurring complaints regarding misplaced answer scripts, calculation errors, delayed re-evaluations, and a lack of transparency in the assessment process. Against this backdrop, the decision to shift from a paper-dependent evaluation model to a fully digital and traceable system represented a significant reform effort. The objective was clear: reduce human error, enhance accountability, and build greater confidence in the credibility of examination results.
Yet, as implementation began, opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal alleged that modifications in the CBSE tender process were designed to favour a particular company. The charges quickly gained political traction, with critics portraying the project as another example of cronyism in public procurement. Such allegations deserve serious examination because public trust in education cannot be compromised. However, a closer reading of the available documentation presents a far more nuanced picture than the one reflected in political rhetoric.
The controversy largely revolves around changes made to the original tender conditions. Critics argue that these amendments diluted standards to benefit a specific bidder. What is often omitted from this narrative is the fact that the original tender conditions proved so restrictive that all four participating bidders, including Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), failed to qualify during the technical evaluation stage. Faced with this outcome, CBSE confronted a practical dilemma. It could either abandon or indefinitely delay a critical reform initiative, or it could revisit the tender conditions to make them operationally feasible. The Board chose the latter course, a decision that is not unusual in large public procurement exercises.
One of the most debated changes was the reduction of the prescribed scanning quality requirement from 300 DPI to 200 DPI. Opposition leaders portrayed this amendment as evidence of favouritism. However, records from pre-bid consultations reportedly indicate that this suggestion was raised during discussions involving bidders themselves, including TCS. If accurate, this fact fundamentally weakens the claim that the modification was crafted solely for the benefit of one company. Similar criticisms regarding the reduction of the mandatory CMMI certification level and the shortening of the cooling-off period also appear less extraordinary when viewed against prevailing government procurement norms.
Perhaps the strongest challenge to the scam narrative lies in the economics of the contract itself. In most procurement controversies, allegations of favouritism are accompanied by inflated costs and excessive public expenditure. Here, the available figures suggest the opposite. While one of the competing bids reportedly quoted approximately ₹65 per answer sheet, the selected bidder offered a rate of ₹24.75 per answer sheet. Such a significant reduction in cost raises an obvious question: if the objective was to provide undue financial advantage, why did the outcome result in substantial savings for the exchequer?
The debate has also overlooked the broader purpose of digital evaluation. No technological transformation of this scale can be expected to function flawlessly from day one. The evaluation of millions of answer scripts inevitably involves operational challenges, software adjustments, and procedural refinements. Available data suggests that the error rate remained extremely low relative to the scale of the exercise, while issues that emerged were documented, reviewed, and corrected. That is not evidence of systemic collapse; rather, it is how large-scale technological systems are expected to evolve.
As India’s education sector enters a new digital era, the challenge before policymakers and political actors alike is to ensure that legitimate oversight does not become an obstacle to necessary change. Reform should never be immune from criticism, but neither should criticism become a substitute for facts.
Leave Your Comment