The K. Radhakrishnan Committee recently submitted a comprehensive report to the Union education ministry recommending transformative changes to the National Entrance Eligibility Test (NEET) and other national entrance exams.

Formed in the wake of a major NEET paper leak scandal, this seven-member panel, headed by former Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) chief, includes Dr Randeep Guleria, former director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) , New Delhi; BJ Rao, Vice-Chancellor, University of Hyderabad; Ramamurthy K., Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras; Pankaj Bansal, Member, Karmayogi Bharat Board, which focuses on skill development in India; Aditya Mittal, Professor, IIT Delhi; and Govind Jaiswal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Education.

The committee’s mandate was to propose measures to improve exam security, streamline processes and address persistent issues that have plagued NEET and similar exams. These are the major recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee.

Online testing and hybrid model
The committee suggests a gradual transition to online testing with the goal of minimizing the risks associated with paper-based exams. For cases where full online testing is not feasible, he recommended a hybrid model, where question papers are sent digitally to exam centers and students record their answers on paper. This hybrid approach helps to reduce the number of people handling the question papers by transmitting them digitally until the examination starts, thereby minimizing possible leakages. This model also eliminates the need for a printing press, a solid room, and multiple transit stages—all points vulnerable to security breaches.

Multi-stage examination for medical aspirants
Acknowledging the immense pressure and high stakes of the NEET-UG exam, the board advocates a multi-stage exam format similar to the JEE (Main and Advanced) structure. With nearly 2 million students competing for limited places in medical colleges, this two-tier system could allow students to better demonstrate their qualifications. The proposed first stage would serve as a screening exam, with the second round providing a more in-depth assessment for those who qualify, easing the logistical burden on examination centers and improving the accuracy of selection.

Streamlining subject choices in CUET
At present, candidates appearing for the Central University Entrance Test (CUET) can choose from over 50 subjects, leading to redundancy for students who have already been assessed in these subjects during board exams. The committee suggested that CUET should focus on assessing general aptitude along with a limited range of subjects essential for admission, rather than repeating board-level assessments. This change would simplify the process, reduce the need for multiple sets of question papers and minimize staff involvement, which are vital to maintaining the integrity of the examination.

Enhanced staff and permanent roles within the NTA
The committee identified the heavy reliance on contract staff within the ANT as a key vulnerability. It recommended increasing permanent staff, suggesting that qualified and long-term employees are essential for consistent management of review processes and data security. By building a more stable and dedicated workforce, the NTA would be better equipped to handle the complexities and high stakes of national entrance examinations.

Greater government control over exam administration
To reduce dependence on third-party service providers, the committee recommends that NTA establish more of its own examination centres. This measure aims to reduce the risks associated with outsourcing and ensure strict application of examination protocols. The committee specifically advised against using private centers, which can be difficult to monitor comprehensively, and suggested that exams be conducted predominantly in government institutions where oversight is stronger.

Increased data security and closer exam start times
To address paper leakage issues, the panel advised that wherever possible, exam questions should be sent digitally to exam centers as close to the start of the exam as possible. This approach minimizes the chance of unauthorized access. By limiting the number of staff and facilities handling question papers, the committee believes that the examination process can achieve greater confidentiality and reliability.

Limiting the number of NEET attempts
Currently, there is no limit to the number of times a candidate can appear for NEET, which may encourage repeated attempts without proper preparation. The committee has recommended a limit on the number of attempts allowed for NEET, similar to limits on attempts in other high-stakes exams around the world. This proposal aims to level the playing field and encourage thorough training, reducing the intensity of competition and increasing fairness.

Why was the Radhakrishnan Committee formed?
The committee’s recommendations come in the backdrop of a growing controversy surrounding NEET. In recent years, NEET has faced a number of issues that have put its credibility under the scanner. The catalyst for the current crisis is a NEET paper leak earlier this year that shook public confidence and brought students to the streets. Stories emerged of students achieving exceptionally high scores despite questionable academic backgrounds, and reports of answer sheets being tampered with in transit raised questions about the exam’s security protocols.

The NEET controversy dates back to its inception. Originally designed to standardize medical entrance exams in India, NEET has replaced a host of regional and institution-specific tests. This uniform test was seen as a way to provide equal opportunity to students across the country, but implementation has been a challenge. The paper-based format of NEET made it susceptible to logistical issues and security breaches. While NTA has succeeded in making JEE engineering entrance a fully computerized test, NEET remains paper-based due to concerns over digital accessibility in rural areas.

The public outcry over repeated paper leaks and irregularities has prompted opposition parties to call for a complete overhaul of the NTA and its examination procedures. Allegations of favoritism and mismanagement further aggravated matters, especially when top NEET candidates disproportionately emerged from specific test centers linked to influential individuals.

Hence, the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee are not just reforms but a potential lifeline for the future of NEET. They represent a collective hope for restoring the credibility of one of India’s most important entrance exams. If implemented, these changes can not only secure the examination process, but also reduce the stress and uncertainty faced by millions of aspiring students every year.