The announcement that National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-UG (NEET-UG) will shift to a computer-based testing (CBT) format following the 2026 question paper leak reflects a recurring pattern in Indian policy: when a system fails visibly, the response is to upgrade its machinery rather than question its architecture. Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan‘s framing of the crisis as primarily a problem of implementation – of insufficient digitalisation and inadequate centralisation – mistakes a symptom for the disease. The more important question is not how the paper leaked, but why leaking it was worth the risk at all. That answer does not lie in the delivery mechanism. It lies in what the exam has become: a single, absolute determinant of an entire generation’s medical futures.While the shift to CBT will certainly eliminate some of the problems, it will close certain loopholes for physical paper leaks, and some forms of impersonation will become more difficult. But it should not be overlooked that CBT will create a new level of inequality. Familiarity with technology, reliable internet access, and computer literacy will directly shape performance, while even a small technical disruption can affect a candidate’s overall performance.The centralised education structure treats students as data pointsThe technical failure that disrupted Common University Entrance Test-UG (CUET-UG) 2026, leaving thousands of students stranded for hours in scorching heat outside examination centres is a warning that policymakers would do well to heed. The breakdown on CUET-UG exam day has clearly exposed the vulnerabilities of NEET-CBT. The fact that it came after the NEET-UG paper leak, CBSE’s on-screen marking controversy and repeated SSC failures reveals a systemic institutional failure in India’s centralised examination structure, rather than the incompetence of one agency. While CUET and NEET differ in scale and administration, both depend on the same centralised vendor ecosystem, the same National Testing Agency (NTA) oversight architecture, and the same assumption that technology can substitute for institutional integrity. The CUET glitch proves that offering the false comfort of digitalisation in place of genuine reform is no solution at all. There are deeper questions to be examined than whether the exam is offline or online. This debate often assumes that when the exam is fair, opportunities are equal, and that if we fix logistical issues, problems like paper leaks will be solved. The NEET coaching economy is a rational response to a high-stakes centralised filter; when the stakes are high, those with capital will invest heavily in preparation.Also read: The National Testing Agency Has Failed its Exams In this ecosystem, the student is not a learner, rather, they are treated as a data point. Data such as mock test scores, error analyses, and time-per-question metrics are fed into an algorithmic preparation machinery that reduces students to mere variables to be optimised. Those with access to this ecosystem gain a massive structural advantage in such systems. This reduction of students to optimisable variables is not incidental to high-stakes centralised testing, it is its logical product. Emerging reports suggest that the question paper leak was the result of internal insider collusion. This proves that the main vulnerability lies not in the exam format itself, but in the human-institutional network that controls access to it. Even the most secure system can be easily compromised when those entrusted with its protection become the weak links. In this sense, internal breaches highlight a deep governance failure that no change in exam methodology can remedy. High-stakes centralised exams like NEET are driven by a coaching-market economy that creates powerful economic incentives for malpractice. In response, greater centralisation and more technology are marketed as the ultimate “solutions.” But they do not actually solve the problem; rather, they function merely as tools of institutional legitimation.CBT may create new problemsThe shift to an online format could also trigger a massive accountability crisis. When an error occurs in an offline exam, such as a wrong question or a marking mistake, it is recognised as a human decision and can therefore be challenged. But when a glitch happens in an online, algorithm-driven system, it is often dismissed as a neutral system output. This language of computer-generated decisions is dangerous; it neatly disguises political and institutional choices as mere technical neutrality.Besides the fact that structural changes take decades, they often raise difficult questions about federalism and reservations. In such a scenario, a simple announcement of a shift to CBT manufactures a sense of change among the public and allows exams to be conducted without much difficulty using existing NTA resources. In addition, because the public perceives anything digital as automatically safe and impartial, technological solutions become highly lucrative for governments. Accountability dissolves, the illusion of reform persists, and the underlying structure remains unchanged. In this context, technology becomes a political symbol, not a genuine solution.Multiple entry pathwaysReal reform must ask not only how examinations are conducted, but why they have become sites of such intense social and economic pressure. As long as a single exam determines a student’s future, the economic incentives for corruption will remain, regardless of the format.One of the most meaningful structural alternatives to a single high-stakes national filter is the introduction of multiple entry pathways into medical education, combined with a genuine restoration of state autonomy over admissions.Also read: Paper Leaks Will Continue Until We Redesign the System ItselfDisaggregating that gatekeeping function across multiple pathways such as aptitude-based assessments, school performance over two years, interviews evaluating reasoning and communication, or portfolio-based admissions for underrepresented regions are some of the alternatives that our policy makers need to evaluate.Ultimately, medical competence can be assessed through multiple valid instruments, and that different states have different educational ecosystems, languages of instruction, and public health priorities that a centralised exam simply cannot account for.A federal model may work betterA federal model could easily establish a national baseline as floor, not a ceiling while leaving it to the states to design admission rules that actually fit their regional context and ground realities. This would instantly bring democratic accountability back to the table. After all, state governments are answerable to their voters in ways that a centralised, technocratic body like the NTA structurally never can be. Looked at this way, the long-standing demand from Tamil Nadu to abolish NTA-led NEET shouldn’t be dismissed as mere political defiance; it should be read as a genuine proposal for democratising our medical education system. The alternatives like multiple pathways, state autonomy, portfolio-based admissions are not untested idealism, they are the norm in most countries that produce competent doctors.The government’s move to temporarily block Telegram and disable its message-editing features ahead of the June 2026 NEET retest is a classic example of this pattern. Framed publicly as a crackdown on cheating rackets, such bans in practice do little except disrupt the last-minute preparation of lakhs of honest students who depend on the platform for study groups and doubt-clearing. It reveals exactly where policymakers are looking – at how a leaked paper spreads online, while ignoring the institutional failures at the source. Ultimately, NEET-CBT is not a solution – it is a more expensive version of the same problem. As long as one exam decides one million futures, the incentives for corruption, the coaching economy, and the exclusion of entire communities will persist, regardless of whether the paper is printed or pixelated. A parliamentary review is a necessary start. But the deeper question India must eventually answer is: do we want a medical system built on who survives a filter, or one built on who can serve a community?Arun Kumar PK is a Tech+Society Emerging Practitioner Fellow at the Centre for Digitalisation, AI and Society, Ashoka University, Sonipat, and a Computational Social Scientist at Safar Foundation, Kolkata. The views expressed are personal.