New Delhi, July 31 -- On July 29, the Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, by a voice vote after a limited discussion. The Bill was hurriedly introduced by the BJP-led government after Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan had to resign on July 25 under prolonged student agitation, steered by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), against the repeated failure of the Union government in conducting national-level examinations, which led to several students taking their own lives. Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday (July 26, 2026) announced the constitution of a high-powered task force, to be headed by former UIDAI chairman Nandan Nilekani, to recommend steps to make the country's examination system leak-proof and technology-driven.
It may be recalled that, in 2024, the Modi government constituted a similar high-powered committee headed by Dr K. Radhakrishnan, former chairman of ISRO, following the NEET-UG paper leak. The government also cancelled the UGC-NET examination after it was held, while the CSIR-NET and NEET-PG examinations were postponed. In that year, the Union government enacted the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, to provide a comprehensive legal framework to curb unfair means in public examinations conducted by major recruitment agencies, including the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), and the National Testing Agency (NTA) for higher education admissions. A repeated question paper leak in 2026 proves beyond doubt that the Union government has failed to prevent unfair means in examinations. Experts are of the opinion that the Indian education system suffers from a structural problem. The rot runs far deeper. Treating these incidents as isolated anomalies is to mistake a symptom for the disease.
In 1966, when education was a State subject, the Kothari Commission recommended that public expenditure on education should reach 6% of GDP. Six decades later, after education was moved to the Concurrent List, India spends between 2.9% and 3.5% of GDP on education-a figure that speaks of neglect and national indifference towards education. Since 1976, education has been shifted from the State List to the Concurrent List. Under the Concurrent List, both the Union and state governments can enact laws on subjects listed under it. The major fallout of this divided responsibility for education is that the states bear roughly 75% to 85% of educational expenditure, yet central authorities such as the UGC, NTA, AICTE, and NMC increasingly dictate policy, standardised testing, and institutional governance. This leads to political tension between the Union government and opposition-led state governments, while students and the education system suffer.
In a significant move during the recent student protests against the NEET paper leak, Tamil Nadu's ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) has revived a long-standing debate on whether education should be part of the State List or the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In a statement following the protests at New Delhi's Jantar Mantar demanding Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation, the TVK emphasised that education must be transferred back from the Concurrent List to the State List. This would grant states full authority over education policy, including medical education. As an interim measure, if an immediate transfer faces legal hurdles, the party has proposed creating a "Special Concurrent List" to empower state governments with enhanced decision-making powers until a full constitutional amendment is achieved.
The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The Union government has exclusive powers to make laws on subjects in the Union List, while state governments can make laws on subjects in the State List. Both the Union and state governments can enact laws on subjects listed under the Concurrent List. India, being a vast and diverse country, demands a decentralised education policy. Accordingly, the Constitution of India, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, made education a State subject by placing it in the State List. However, the Indira Gandhi government moved education to the Concurrent List through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment during the Emergency in 1976, paving the way for national policies like NEET to be introduced by the Union government.
Barring a few institutions, such as (a) Banaras Hindu University, Aligarh Muslim University, Delhi University, and other institutions of national importance; (b) institutions for scientific or technical education wholly or partly financed by the Government of India and declared by an Act of Parliament to be institutions of national importance; and (c) Union agencies and institutions for professional, vocational, or technical training, including the training of police officers and the promotion of special studies and research, most academic institutions are run by the state governments. A NITI Aayog policy report (February 2025) reveals that the 495 State Public Universities (SPUs) and their over 46,000 affiliated institutions account for 81% of the total student enrolment and hence play a vital role in ensuring access to higher education across the length and breadth of India. SPUs serve as regional hubs for higher education, catering to over 32.5 million students across India. Over the last seven decades, the nationwide growth and expansion of SPUs have been primarily driven by the need to increase access to affordable higher education, particularly in remote and underserved regions. This has been essential in meeting the rising demand for higher education and addressing regional imbalances in educational access, observes NITI Aayog.
Now, it is being argued that when the states bear the major responsibility for imparting primary, middle, and higher education to their citizens, state governments should be allowed to manage this vital sector on their own. Hence, edutcation should be brought back to the State List from the Concurrent List. In that case, the states will be more accountable for educational outcomes, potentially leading to better governance and management. States will be able to develop policies tailored to their unique cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic contexts. For instance, Kerala's high literacy rates are attributed to state-specific policies. Moreover, progressive states will get an opportunity to experiment with and implement innovative educational models without central constraints, as seen in Tamil Nadu's ICT integration in schools.
Unlike China, most advanced economies, such as the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, follow decentralised systems of education. As India and China follow two different political systems of governance, one should not compare India's NTA-run tests with the Chinese Gaokao, or the National College Entrance Examination, where every year on June 7 and 8, nearly nine million students take the examination, which is the sole determining factor for university admission. The imperial education and examination system in China is estimated to have been founded as early as the Han Dynasty (206 BCE to 220 CE). One of the longest legacies of this imperial education tradition is the famous Gaokao. Education in Germany is primarily the responsibility of the individual German states (Lander), with the federal government playing only a minor role. The federal government of the United States has limited authority over education, and education policy is designed to support the education systems of state and local governments. The US federal government is responsible for ensuring that state education laws and school practices comply with the Constitution of the United States. This includes protecting the constitutional rights of students, ensuring equal access to education, and governing the role of religion in schools.
The Government of India Act, 1935, created a federal structure by placing education under the Provincial List. However, the very first article of the Indian Constitution, Article 1(1), unequivocally declares: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." While India possesses all the fundamental features of a federation, the term "Union of States" in Article 1(1) signifies certain distinctions. Thus, legal scholars have often described India's constitutional structure as "quasi-federal" or sui generis (unique in its characteristics). Since the 1970s, following the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, even this "quasi-federal" structure has gradually been replaced by a more centralised framework. The recent chaos in conducting national-level examinations by the National Testing Agency (NTA) is an outcome of this process. Reform of the education system should begin with remodelling its basic governance structure, using the Government of India Act, 1935, as the benchmark.
Views expressed are personal. The writer is a professor of Business Administration who primarily writes on political economy, global trade, and sustainable development
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.