5 questions every CBSE Class 12 student is asking right now
CBSE is facing mounting complaints from Class 12 students alleging that scanned answer sheets were either mismatched or incomplete. What began as a dispute over marks has now escalated into a larger credibility crisis, with students and parents questioning the very integrity and accountability of the board's evaluation system.
The future of 18 lakh students is at stake. CBSE officials eventually acknowledged a lapse after reportedly sharing the original answer sheet of a Class 12 student from Delhi who had earlier alleged receiving someone else’s copy. But that was not an isolated complaint. Sanjana, another Class 12 student, posted on X claiming that the scanned answer sheet she received did not match her handwriting.
In a press conference held two days after the declaration of results on May 15, CBSE stated that over 13,000 answer sheets out of nearly 98 lakh evaluated copies required manual review due to discrepancies linked to the newly introduced On-Screen Marking (OSM) system.
The mechanism itself has raised several questions. Over 4 lakh students requested scanned copies of their answer sheets, amid concerns over possible marking errors or other discrepancies. In total, CBSE had to share more than 11 lakh evaluated copies with students.
Many are now waiting for the re-evaluation process, for which CBSE reduced fees, apparently in an effort to ease concerns following the controversy that has unfolded over the past two weeks.
This year, CBSE’s Class 12 pass percentage declined by nearly 3 percentage points, from 88.31% to 85.20%, a shift that has prompted discussions around the newly introduced OSM mechanism.
No direct evidence links the lower pass percentage to OSM. But when a new system is introduced and scrutiny follows immediately after, questions become inevitable.
In India, even one mark matters, it decides a college, a scholarship, a counselling seat or even eligibility for entrance pathways. The whole process is getting affected with what happened.
IS THE NUMBER 13,000 CORRECT FOR THE COPIES FOUND TO HAVE DISCREPANCIES?
CBSE disclosed the figure but stopped short of explaining how discrepancies emerged, how many results changed after intervention or whether affected students were informed.
Out of 98,00,000 evaluated copies, around 13,000 were found to have discrepancies, according to CBSE, after which they were sent for manual checking.
In a system where students miss cut-offs by one or two marks, manual correction is not merely a technical process. It changes outcomes.
WHY WAS OSM IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT EXTENSIVE TRIALS, AND WHY DID OVER 4 LAKH STUDENTS SEEK SCANNED COPIES?
CBSE implemented the On-Screen Marking (OSM) mechanism this year, arguing that it would make the evaluation process more transparent, efficient, accurate and credible.
The board maintained that digitising assessment would improve consistency and reduce errors. Whether those objectives have been achieved remains a matter of debate.
Reports and discussions around the rollout have suggested that some evaluators may not have received adequate training on the new system, while others questioned whether implementation was carried out in haste. These claims remain largely unverified, but they have added to concerns surrounding the transition to OSM.
CBSE’s own figures showed that more than four lakh students applied for scanned copies, requesting access to over eleven lakh answer books.
Such numbers are unusual for any national board. It may indicate growing awareness among students, or something more uncomfortable: declining confidence in the evaluation process itself.
WHY DID CBSE NOT CONDUCT OR DISCLOSE AUDITS AND CERT EVALUATIONS?
Then comes the question around technology and procurement. CBSE introduced the On-Screen Marking system this year as a move towards digitised evaluation.
Reports and public discussions have linked the system’s development and deployment to Hyderabad-based education technology company COEMPT.
Yet little public explanation has emerged regarding independent audits, testing procedures or safeguards before implementation at scale.
India has agencies such as CERT-In, the government’s nodal cybersecurity response body, tasked with responding to digital incidents and vulnerabilities.
Yet amid allegations around portals, evaluation mechanisms and digital discrepancies, public communication from oversight institutions has remained limited. CBSE later denied breach allegations and stated that a cited website involved only sample test data unrelated to actual evaluation systems.
But students increasingly ask whether independent technical reviews occurred at all.
HAS INDIA'S EXAMINATION ECOSYSTEM ENTERED A PERIOD WHERE STUDENTS TRUST VERIFICATION MORE THAN RESULTS?
The NEET-UG controversy in 2024 and 2026, involving allegations of paper leaks, shook confidence in one of the country’s largest entrance examinations. Investigations followed, arrests followed and the issue reached the courts. Repeated controversies around national exams leave behind something difficult to quantify: distrust.
That distrust is now visible among parents.
One parent alleged that her daughter’s scanned answer sheets carried missing pages.
Another questioned how children are expected to prepare for admissions while pursuing photocopies and re-evaluation requests.
WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO DIRECT COMMUNICATION FROM THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION?
The Ministry of Education, which oversees school education policy and institutions such as CBSE, has largely remained silent amid growing concerns around the board’s result and re-evaluation process.
Beyond the May 15 press conference held by CBSE, where officials acknowledged that over 13,000 answer sheets required manual review following discrepancies, there has been limited public communication addressing the wider concerns being raised by students and parents.
No senior elected representative or ministry official has publicly detailed the extent of complaints, the review process underway or whether an independent assessment has been initiated.
As questions around answer sheet mismatches, missing pages, scanned copy discrepancies and the newly introduced OSM mechanism continue to surface, the absence of regular briefings has become a concern in itself.
Education remains one of the most sensitive sectors in the country. For students, board marks influence admissions, scholarships and future academic opportunities. For parents, uncertainty around evaluation creates anxiety during counselling and admission periods. In such circumstances, communication is often viewed as important as corrective action.
CBSE has continued to issue clarifications and updates through posts on X where it has admitted the blunder of exchanged copies of two students and pledged to fix the results, including information on scanned copies and re-evaluation timelines.
A delay can mean missing counselling. Ten marks can alter institutions. One failed subject can cost a year.
Students such as Vedant, Sanjana, Moksh and Harshita alleged discrepancies. Parents entered the discussion. Four lakh students sought verification. Political leaders demanded accountability. Yet the loudest question remains unanswered.
If something goes wrong, who takes responsibility — the board, the technology provider, oversight agencies or no one at all?
The future of 18 lakh students is at stake. CBSE officials eventually acknowledged a lapse after reportedly sharing the original answer sheet of a Class 12 student from Delhi who had earlier alleged receiving someone else’s copy. But that was not an isolated complaint. Sanjana, another Class 12 student, posted on X claiming that the scanned answer sheet she received did not match her handwriting.
In a press conference held two days after the declaration of results on May 15, CBSE stated that over 13,000 answer sheets out of nearly 98 lakh evaluated copies required manual review due to discrepancies linked to the newly introduced On-Screen Marking (OSM) system.
The mechanism itself has raised several questions. Over 4 lakh students requested scanned copies of their answer sheets, amid concerns over possible marking errors or other discrepancies. In total, CBSE had to share more than 11 lakh evaluated copies with students.
Many are now waiting for the re-evaluation process, for which CBSE reduced fees, apparently in an effort to ease concerns following the controversy that has unfolded over the past two weeks.
This year, CBSE’s Class 12 pass percentage declined by nearly 3 percentage points, from 88.31% to 85.20%, a shift that has prompted discussions around the newly introduced OSM mechanism.
No direct evidence links the lower pass percentage to OSM. But when a new system is introduced and scrutiny follows immediately after, questions become inevitable.
In India, even one mark matters, it decides a college, a scholarship, a counselling seat or even eligibility for entrance pathways. The whole process is getting affected with what happened.
IS THE NUMBER 13,000 CORRECT FOR THE COPIES FOUND TO HAVE DISCREPANCIES?
CBSE disclosed the figure but stopped short of explaining how discrepancies emerged, how many results changed after intervention or whether affected students were informed.
Out of 98,00,000 evaluated copies, around 13,000 were found to have discrepancies, according to CBSE, after which they were sent for manual checking.
In a system where students miss cut-offs by one or two marks, manual correction is not merely a technical process. It changes outcomes.
WHY WAS OSM IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT EXTENSIVE TRIALS, AND WHY DID OVER 4 LAKH STUDENTS SEEK SCANNED COPIES?
CBSE implemented the On-Screen Marking (OSM) mechanism this year, arguing that it would make the evaluation process more transparent, efficient, accurate and credible.
The board maintained that digitising assessment would improve consistency and reduce errors. Whether those objectives have been achieved remains a matter of debate.
Reports and discussions around the rollout have suggested that some evaluators may not have received adequate training on the new system, while others questioned whether implementation was carried out in haste. These claims remain largely unverified, but they have added to concerns surrounding the transition to OSM.
CBSE’s own figures showed that more than four lakh students applied for scanned copies, requesting access to over eleven lakh answer books.
Such numbers are unusual for any national board. It may indicate growing awareness among students, or something more uncomfortable: declining confidence in the evaluation process itself.
WHY DID CBSE NOT CONDUCT OR DISCLOSE AUDITS AND CERT EVALUATIONS?
Then comes the question around technology and procurement. CBSE introduced the On-Screen Marking system this year as a move towards digitised evaluation.
Reports and public discussions have linked the system’s development and deployment to Hyderabad-based education technology company COEMPT.
Yet little public explanation has emerged regarding independent audits, testing procedures or safeguards before implementation at scale.
India has agencies such as CERT-In, the government’s nodal cybersecurity response body, tasked with responding to digital incidents and vulnerabilities.
Yet amid allegations around portals, evaluation mechanisms and digital discrepancies, public communication from oversight institutions has remained limited. CBSE later denied breach allegations and stated that a cited website involved only sample test data unrelated to actual evaluation systems.
But students increasingly ask whether independent technical reviews occurred at all.
HAS INDIA'S EXAMINATION ECOSYSTEM ENTERED A PERIOD WHERE STUDENTS TRUST VERIFICATION MORE THAN RESULTS?
The NEET-UG controversy in 2024 and 2026, involving allegations of paper leaks, shook confidence in one of the country’s largest entrance examinations. Investigations followed, arrests followed and the issue reached the courts. Repeated controversies around national exams leave behind something difficult to quantify: distrust.
That distrust is now visible among parents.
One parent alleged that her daughter’s scanned answer sheets carried missing pages.
Another questioned how children are expected to prepare for admissions while pursuing photocopies and re-evaluation requests.
WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO DIRECT COMMUNICATION FROM THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION?
The Ministry of Education, which oversees school education policy and institutions such as CBSE, has largely remained silent amid growing concerns around the board’s result and re-evaluation process.
Beyond the May 15 press conference held by CBSE, where officials acknowledged that over 13,000 answer sheets required manual review following discrepancies, there has been limited public communication addressing the wider concerns being raised by students and parents.
No senior elected representative or ministry official has publicly detailed the extent of complaints, the review process underway or whether an independent assessment has been initiated.
As questions around answer sheet mismatches, missing pages, scanned copy discrepancies and the newly introduced OSM mechanism continue to surface, the absence of regular briefings has become a concern in itself.
Education remains one of the most sensitive sectors in the country. For students, board marks influence admissions, scholarships and future academic opportunities. For parents, uncertainty around evaluation creates anxiety during counselling and admission periods. In such circumstances, communication is often viewed as important as corrective action.
CBSE has continued to issue clarifications and updates through posts on X where it has admitted the blunder of exchanged copies of two students and pledged to fix the results, including information on scanned copies and re-evaluation timelines.
A delay can mean missing counselling. Ten marks can alter institutions. One failed subject can cost a year.
Students such as Vedant, Sanjana, Moksh and Harshita alleged discrepancies. Parents entered the discussion. Four lakh students sought verification. Political leaders demanded accountability. Yet the loudest question remains unanswered.
If something goes wrong, who takes responsibility — the board, the technology provider, oversight agencies or no one at all?
