The Radhakrishnan Committee Report: What Affiliating Universities Must Learn from NTA's Vulnerabilities

Eighteen Months Later: The Report That Universities Ignored

A Business Standard analysis published on July 27, 2026 revisited the findings of the K. Radhakrishnan Committee — the expert panel formed in 2024 to investigate structural weaknesses in the National Testing Agency following the NEET-UG controversy. The committee's report, submitted in September 2024, identified specific failure points across the examination lifecycle.

Most institutional attention at the time focused on what NTA needed to fix. Eighteen months later, with the Nandan Nilekani Task Force formed in July 2026 to deepen those reforms, the same structural vulnerabilities the Radhakrishnan Committee described are clearly visible in the examination offices of India's 800-plus affiliating universities. They have received far less attention — and far less remediation.

What the Radhakrishnan Committee Actually Found

The committee, chaired by former ISRO Chairman K. Radhakrishnan and comprising former IB Director Tapan Deka and IIT Madras Director V. Kamakoti among others, identified six categories of systemic vulnerability in India's examination ecosystem:

1. Question paper security gaps. Physical printing and distribution created too many interception points. Papers moved through printing presses, courier chains, and district-level storage facilities — each step a potential leak site. The committee recommended encrypted digital transmission of question papers and printing only at authorised examination centres on examination day.

2. Weak candidate identity verification. Impersonation was facilitated at entry. The committee recommended biometric verification at multiple stages, which subsequently became the foundation of the DIGI-EXAM framework announced alongside the Nilekani Task Force.

3. Absence of evaluator accountability. Manual evaluation lacked audit trails. No verifiable record existed linking a specific examiner to a specific answer script. Errors could not be reconstructed, patterns of poor marking could not be identified, and accountability for incorrect results was diffuse.

4. Error-prone result computation. Hand-tallying of marks introduced systematic errors — missing marks, transcription errors between raw score and mark sheet, and aggregation mistakes. The committee recommended automated mark aggregation with independent software-based verification.

5. Vendor concentration risk. Over-reliance on a single technology or logistics vendor without adequate due diligence created single points of failure. The CBSE-COEMPT vendor controversy in 2026 illustrated exactly this risk.

6. Opaque grievance redressal. The mechanism for challenging results was slow, non-transparent, and manual, creating large backlogs that affected admissions timelines and student outcomes.

The Uncomfortable Parallel: Universities Face the Same Six Vulnerabilities

Here is the structural problem that the Radhakrishnan report has not been used to address. Replace "NTA" with "Controller of Examinations" and "NEET-UG" with any major affiliating university examination, and the committee's findings describe the standard Indian university examination office.

On question paper security: Most affiliating universities print question papers centrally and distribute by courier or private logistics to examination centres across districts. The Veer Madho Singh Bhandari Uttarakhand Technical University BTech leak in July 2026 — where question papers matching the actual examination by 90–95% were found circulating on WhatsApp — used exactly this distribution vector. It was not an anomaly. It was the predictable outcome of a distribution chain with no digital security layer.

On candidate identity verification: Photo-based attendance registers at university examinations are routinely forged. There is no biometric link between the candidate who sat the examination and the mark sheet issued against their roll number. The Radhakrishnan committee identified this as a core NTA vulnerability; it exists identically in university settings.

On evaluator accountability: In a paper-based university evaluation camp, 50 evaluators sit in a hall marking scripts, and no individual's marks on any specific script can be reconstructed afterward. If a student challenges their result, there is no audit trail to review. The Controller of Examinations cannot tell a student which evaluator marked their paper, what score was given question by question, or why the result differed from their expectation.

On result computation: The 2026 Karnataka and Maharashtra revaluation controversies were both rooted in manual mark entry errors — the exact category of failure Radhakrishnan identified at NTA. In Karnataka, students who had passed on the evaluator's original marks failed on the mark sheet because of transcription errors. Digital evaluation eliminates this vector entirely by computing and transmitting marks within the same system.

On vendor risk: Most affiliating universities maintain long-standing relationships with a single scanning bureau or examination software vendor. Published security audits are rare. Exit plans do not exist. Contractual accountability for data breaches is minimal. This is the vendor concentration risk the committee warned about, replicated across hundreds of institutions.

On grievance redressal: University revaluation processes routinely take 60–90 days, cost students admission opportunities, and provide no question-level feedback. The CBSE experience in 2026 — where the revaluation system was overwhelmed immediately after results — illustrated what happens when analogue grievance infrastructure meets digital-scale demand.

What Affiliating Universities Should Implement Now

The Nilekani Task Force is focused on centrally-conducted examinations. Its recommendations will initially apply to NTA, UPSC, and similar bodies. Universities should not wait for that mandate to extend to their systems before addressing the same vulnerabilities.

On-screen digital evaluation addresses evaluator accountability and result computation simultaneously. Every mark is logged with the evaluator's ID and timestamp. Automated aggregation eliminates hand-tallying errors. Double-valuation and moderation workflows are enforced by the system, not by supervisor oversight alone.

Encrypted digital question paper delivery — where the paper is transmitted digitally and printed at the examination centre only on the morning of the examination — eliminates most physical interception points. This was specifically recommended by the Radhakrishnan Committee. Several state universities in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Uttarakhand are already piloting variants of this model.

Digital candidate verification at the evaluation stage — matching the scanned answer booklet cover to the registered candidate's biometric or photo — closes the impersonation gap at both the examination-sitting stage and the evaluation stage.

Vendor due diligence frameworks modelled on what the committee recommended for NTA: multiple vendors for different examination components, documented security audits, published SLAs, and clear liability provisions for data breaches.

The Regulatory Context That Universities Cannot Ignore

The Public Examinations (Amendment) Act 2026 extended criminal liability for examination fraud to examination officers, paper-setting committee members, and technology vendors. This applies to university examinations, not just centrally-conducted exams. Controllers of Examinations who have not implemented documented security protocols now carry personal legal exposure if a leak occurs.

The legislation also requires examination bodies to maintain verifiable records of the examination process. For paper-based systems, "verifiable records" is a standard that is very difficult to meet. For digital evaluation systems, it is a byproduct of normal operation.

What the Radhakrishnan Report Is, Read Correctly

The Radhakrishnan Committee's report is not a technical audit of one agency's failures. It is a taxonomy of the structural vulnerabilities that exist wherever examinations are administered at scale without digital security infrastructure. Those vulnerabilities do not disappear when you move from a centralised test to a university examination. They move with the paper.

Universities that treat the NEET-UG crisis as something that happened to NTA — not as a template for what can happen to them — are misreading the report. The architecture that produced the crisis is, in most affiliating universities, still in place.

Related Reading