 new On-Screen Marking (OSM) system for Class 12 examinations){kind=link}
A student who received the wrong answer sheet, a teenager who scrutinised tender documents
May 31, 2026: The controversy surrounding the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) new On-Screen Marking (OSM) system for Class 12 examinations has largely been driven by students on social media rather than political parties. The issue gained momentum after several students raised concerns about answer sheet mismatches, blurred scans, missing pages and evaluation errors. Three young individuals emerged at the centre of the debate: a student who received someone else’s answer sheet, a teenager who examined the OSM tender process, and a cybersecurity enthusiast who claimed to have identified vulnerabilities in the evaluation portal.
The first major case involved student Vedant Shrivastava, who discovered that the answer sheet provided to him during re-evaluation did not match his handwriting. His complaint quickly went viral online, prompting CBSE to acknowledge the issue and provide the correct answer sheet. Meanwhile, 17-year-old Sarthak Sidhant drew attention through a detailed analysis of tender documents linked to the OSM project, questioning whether eligibility conditions had been altered during the selection process. Both CBSE and the technology vendor, Hyderabad-based Coempt EduTeck, denied any irregularities and maintained that procurement procedures were followed correctly.
Adding to the controversy, 19-year-old Nisarga Adhikary claimed he had discovered security weaknesses in the OSM portal. While CBSE initially dismissed the allegations, it later acknowledged that certain vulnerabilities had been identified and addressed. The board said additional cybersecurity measures had been implemented and that technical experts were reviewing the system. The issue has since attracted political attention, with opposition leaders including Rahul Gandhi praising the students’ efforts and calling for greater accountability. CBSE, however, continues to defend the OSM system as a transparent and efficient evaluation method while allowing students to seek re-evaluation through its official process.