Rahul Gandhi (Congress) criticized the Central Board of Secondary Education on Sunday and Monday over alleged fraud in the answer-sheet scanning process.
The dispute centers on whether students should bear the financial burden of correcting board errors. This controversy highlights growing tensions regarding the accessibility and fairness of national education administration in India.
Gandhi focused his attack on the On-Screen Marking (OSM) row, where he alleged significant irregularities in how the board handles digital scanning. He questioned the ethics of requiring students to pay for re-evaluation and verification services when the errors may have originated from the board's own systems [1].
According to Gandhi, the scanning irregularities have potentially affected 1.85 million students [1]. He said the current state of the education system is "financialised," suggesting that the process of correcting administrative mistakes has been turned into a revenue stream for the board [2].
Gandhi warned that students should be wary of the system, comparing the situation to a risk of pickpockets. He said that the government should not charge students for fixing errors caused by the board's scanning failures [1].
The Congress leader reiterated his criticism on Monday, calling for greater transparency in the OSM process. He said the board must be held accountable for the technical failures that lead to incorrect marking and subsequent fee demands [2].
The CBSE has not yet issued a formal rebuttal to these specific allegations of fraud in the scanning process. The controversy continues to gain traction as students and parents express frustration over the costs associated with verifying marks [1].
“Rahul Gandhi alleged fraud in the CBSE answer-sheet scanning process.”
This escalation by Rahul Gandhi transforms a technical administrative dispute into a broader political critique of the current government's management of public services. By framing the re-evaluation fees as a financial burden on students, the opposition is leveraging a high-stakes issue—student grades—to argue that the state's digital infrastructure is failing and unfairly penalizing the youth.
