The National Testing Agency (NTA) has ordered fresh examinations for English, Commerce and Sociology papers of UGC-NET June 2026 after an expert committee found widespread factual, typographical, grammatical and translation errors, along with a significant number of repeated questions.
The re-tests will be held on September 9 and 10, with no additional fee for affected candidates. The move follows weeks of complaints from aspirants and criticism from student groups and Opposition parties over the reliability of the examination process.
On August 17, Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi reviewed the matter with senior officials and directed a wider overhaul of NTA’s examination system.
The Education Ministry said more than 50 NTA staff members have been removed, while 10 new professional leadership positions covering technology, finance, cybersecurity, test security, research and psychometrics are being filled. Joshi has also ordered an audit of all examination processes and a complete overhaul of confidential operations.
Errors Trigger Fresh Scrutiny
The controversy intensified after candidates reported serious problems in the three UGC-NET papers conducted in June. The committee constituted by NTA found that the papers contained factual and typographical mistakes, translation problems, misspelt names of scholars, incorrect book titles, grammatical and punctuation errors, wrongly worded questions and non-standard terminology.
The Sociology paper, for instance, drew complaints over names such as “Ritzer” being printed as “Putzer” and “Parsons” as “Parsow”. Candidates also alleged poor Hindi translations and questions they believed did not align with the prescribed syllabus.
In the English paper, candidates alleged that 67 of 150 questions were identical to those asked in the 2024 UGC-NET examination, with the answer-option sequence also reportedly unchanged. Similar complaints later emerged around the Commerce paper.
NTA concluded that the problems were too extensive to be resolved by simply deleting individual questions during the answer-key challenge process and decided that fresh examinations were necessary to protect the fairness of the assessment.
Reform, Accountability And Protests
The re-test decision has placed affected aspirants in an uncomfortable position: they must prepare for another examination despite having already appeared for the original test. NTA has said that the re-test will not reduce the number of candidates qualifying for JRF, Assistant Professor or PhD eligibility, and that the process for the other 84 subjects will continue separately.
At the same time, student organisations have demanded stronger accountability. NSUI and Left-affiliated student groups protested outside the NTA office in Delhi, while the RSS-affiliated ABVP also criticised the agency, with its national general secretary Virendra Singh Solanki saying, “Students should not have to pay the price for NTA’s lapses.”
Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi similarly criticised the re-test decision, saying, “NTA makes the mistake, but the student serves the sentence.” The government, however, has responded with structural changes.
The Education Ministry said more than 50 staff members have been removed, while specialists from the private sector are being brought in for cybersecurity, psychometrics and question-paper design. Ten new leadership positions, including Chief Technology Officer, Chief Finance Officer, Chief Information Security Officer and senior roles in test security and research, are also being onboarded.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
For students who spend months preparing for national examinations, fairness is not an administrative detail it is the foundation on which their academic and professional futures are built. The NTA’s decision to acknowledge the flaws and conduct fresh examinations is an important corrective step, but rebuilding trust requires more than replacing personnel or introducing new protocols.
The government’s promised audit should establish clearly how repeated questions, factual mistakes and translation errors passed through multiple stages of question-setting and review, while responsibility should be fixed without turning students into collateral damage. At the same time, criticism from political parties and student groups should remain focused on constructive accountability rather than escalating tensions.
Also read: ‘Fix Ghapla Or I’ll Protest Again’: Ramdev Warns Modi Government Over Student Education
