In a significant legal development, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed against the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by educator Prashant Kirad, alleging that the board failed to maintain a consistent level of difficulty across multiple sets of question papers in the ongoing 2026 board examinations.
The petition claims that students across different regions received question papers of varying toughness, effectively making performance dependent on chance rather than merit. It further alleges that some questions in subjects such as Physics and Mathematics were set at a level comparable to competitive entrance examinations, raising concerns about alignment with the prescribed syllabus. The PIL seeks judicial intervention and demands greater transparency in the board’s moderation and paper-setting processes.
While CBSE has consistently maintained that multiple sets are used to prevent malpractice and that statistical moderation ensures parity, it has not yet issued a detailed public response to the specific claims raised in this petition. The matter has triggered nationwide debate among students, parents, and educators, with many calling for clearer communication and systemic reform.
Allegations Of Disparity And Student Concerns
According to the petition, the core issue lies in the alleged variation in difficulty levels across different question paper sets distributed in various examination centres. Kirad has argued that even minor differences in complexity can significantly influence scores in high-stakes board exams, where a single mark can impact college admissions, scholarships, and career pathways.
Students and parents have reportedly expressed concerns that some sets contained lengthy numerical problems and higher-order conceptual questions that went beyond expected preparation standards. In contrast, other sets were perceived as comparatively straightforward.
The PIL contends that such discrepancies undermine the principle of equal opportunity, particularly when students are competing nationally under the same evaluation framework. It calls upon the court to direct CBSE to disclose the methodology used for designing multiple sets, including moderation formulas and scaling mechanisms, if any. The plea also questions whether adequate pre-testing and expert review were conducted to ensure uniformity.
CBSE, for its part, has historically defended its multi-set system as a necessary measure to prevent cheating, paper leaks, and unfair practices. The board typically asserts that question papers are set within the prescribed syllabus and undergo moderation to maintain comparable standards.
It has also, in past instances, urged students and parents not to rely on social media narratives that may amplify anxiety. However, critics argue that without transparent communication about how equivalence is scientifically maintained, public trust can erode particularly in an age where students quickly compare papers online and highlight perceived disparities.
Exam Reforms, Pressure And The Call For Transparency
Board examinations in India are widely regarded as pivotal milestones in a student’s academic journey. Conducted annually for lakhs of students across the country, CBSE’s Class 10 and Class 12 exams often influence admissions into universities and professional courses.
Given the scale and logistical complexity, the board employs multiple sets of question papers to minimise the risk of academic dishonesty. While this practice is not new, concerns about parity have surfaced periodically over the years.
Education experts note that standardisation in multi-set examinations typically relies on statistical equating and moderation techniques. These processes aim to adjust scores if one set is demonstrably more difficult than another. However, such mechanisms are rarely explained in detail to the public, leaving room for speculation. In a competitive ecosystem where students already grapple with immense pressure, even the perception of unfairness can deepen stress and dissatisfaction.
The present PIL comes at a time when conversations around student mental health, examination reform, and curriculum rationalisation are gaining traction nationwide. The shift towards competency-based questions in recent years, while welcomed by many educators, has also required students to adapt to new formats. When such reforms coincide with allegations of uneven difficulty, tensions can escalate quickly. Legal scrutiny may now compel authorities to articulate their systems more clearly, potentially setting precedents for greater accountability in large-scale assessments.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Examinations are more than academic rituals they shape futures, aspirations, and self-worth for millions of young people. In such a context, fairness must not only exist but be seen to exist. While safeguarding exam integrity through multiple question paper sets is understandable and necessary, transparency about how equality is ensured is equally crucial. When students feel that their performance may hinge on the randomness of a question paper allotment, trust in the system begins to weaken.
Constructive engagement, rather than confrontation, offers the most meaningful way forward. Educational authorities, policymakers, teachers, and student representatives must come together to discuss how assessment systems can evolve to be both secure and equitable. Clear public communication about moderation policies, expert reviews, and grievance redressal mechanisms can go a long way in reducing anxiety.
Read more: Telangana: 20-Year-Old Fresher Found Dead in Medical College Hostel, Probe Underway
