**What Happened and Why It Matters**

Exam Disruptions and Reforms: How India’s High-Stakes Tests Are Testing Institutional Resilience

The cancellation of the NEET-PG 2026 exam for 2,445 candidates due to a power failure at two Jaipur centres, followed by technical glitches disrupting an AIIMS recruitment exam at the same facility, has reignited debates on the reliability of India’s digital examination infrastructure. These incidents, occurring within 48 hours, underscore the fragility of systems underpinning high-stakes national assessments—from medical entrance tests to civil service recruitments—despite their constitutional and statutory safeguards.

---

On August 29, 2026, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) conducted NEET-PG 2026 for over 2.65 lakh candidates across 1,111 centres. However, an internal power supply failure at two iON Digital Zone centres in Jaipur’s Sitapura (test centre numbers 41682 and 41683) forced the cancellation of exams for 2,445 candidates. A re-examination was scheduled for September 5. The next day, the same facility faced technical disruptions during the AIIMS Common Recruitment Examination-5 (CRE-5), prompting another investigation. TCS, the vendor operating the centres, was directed to preserve system logs, CCTV footage, and control room communications for a forensic audit.

• ▸2,445 NEET-PG candidates affected by power failure at centres 41682 and 41683
• ▸AIIMS CRE-5 exam for 21,000+ candidates conducted across 58 centres on August 31
• ▸TCS instructed to submit a detailed report on the Jaipur incident
• ▸Re-examinations for NEET-PG on September 5; AIIMS CRE-5 rescheduled for September 7

The incidents expose a critical vulnerability: while India has rapidly digitised its examination systems—aligning with the Digital India Mission—the supporting infrastructure (power, connectivity, cybersecurity) has not kept pace. This is particularly concerning for exams governed by constitutional bodies like the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), where fairness and transparency are non-negotiable.

---

The Constitutional and Institutional Framework

India’s recruitment examinations for All India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS) and specialised fields like medicine are anchored in constitutional provisions. The UPSC, established under Article 315(1), is mandated to conduct exams for Union services and advise the government on recruitment methods. Similarly, the NBEMS operates under the Indian Medical Council Act 1956, ensuring standardised medical education assessments.

• ▸Article 320(1)-(5) of the Constitution outlines UPSC’s core functions, including exam conduct and disciplinary oversight
• ▸Article 321 empowers UPSC to frame rules for examinations, while Article 322 allows it to seek information from any department
• ▸The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Act, 1987, governs technical education standards, indirectly influencing exam protocols

Yet, these frameworks assume robust execution. The Jaipur incidents reveal a gap: while constitutional bodies ensure procedural fairness, the operational resilience of third-party vendors (like TCS’s iON) remains a weak link. The Information Technology Act 2000 provides legal recourse for cyber breaches, but power failures—often dismissed as "technical glitches"—fall into a regulatory grey area.

---

Broader Implications and the Way Forward

The repeated disruptions at a single facility raise questions about the federal dimension of exam administration. States like Rajasthan, where Jaipur is located, must ensure power stability for national exams, yet the Electricity Act 2003 does not explicitly prioritise exam centres as critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, the National Education Policy 2020 advocates for digital learning but lacks specific safeguards for high-stakes digital assessments.

To prevent recurrence, a multi-pronged approach is needed:

• ▸Infrastructure Audits: Mandatory redundancy checks (backup power, servers) for all exam centres, with penalties for non-compliance.
• ▸Vendor Accountability: Contracts with private vendors like TCS must include clauses for real-time monitoring and rapid response protocols.
• ▸Legal Clarity: Amendments to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or IT Act to classify exam disruptions as a distinct offence, deterring negligence.

The Jaipur incidents are not isolated; they are a stress test for India’s ambition to digitise governance. Without addressing these gaps, the credibility of institutions—from the UPSC to medical councils—risks erosion, undermining the meritocratic foundation of the world’s largest democracy.