Seventeen-year-old student Sarthak Sidhant appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports on Tuesday to present his findings regarding the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) on-screen marking portal. Sidhant, who conducted a multi-day review of tender documents on the Central Public Procurement portal, alleges that the board modified eligibility and technical requirements across three tender rounds to favor the service provider Coempt EduTeck.
Following the presentation, Congress MP Digvijaya Singh, who chairs the panel, confirmed that the committee is now awaiting a formal response from the CBSE. The committee is currently reviewing the implementation of the on-screen marking system in Class 12 examinations, as well as concerns regarding the three-language formula in Class 9 and 10.
Allegations of Procedural Irregularities
Sidhant’s findings, which he published on his website, highlight what he describes as at least 15 discrepancies in the tender process. Among his core claims is the assertion that specific “poor performance” clauses were removed from the new Request for Proposal (RFP). He specifically noted that a provision regarding previously blacklisted entities was modified to only exclude those “blacklisted currently.”
The student’s allegations have gained significant political attention, including remarks from the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi has called for an independent judicial inquiry into the matter, questioning the transparency of the current procurement process.
What Happens Next?
The committee’s next steps depend largely on the forthcoming response from the CBSE. While the panel cannot unilaterally penalize board officials, it retains the power to escalate the matter through the parliamentary process if the board’s testimony is deemed insufficient or inaccurate. Failure to cooperate with the committee could lead to formal proceedings for a Breach of Privilege of Parliament.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the primary focus of Sarthak Sidhant’s presentation to the committee?
Sidhant presented findings alleging that the CBSE altered tender requirements across three rounds to favor Coempt EduTeck, including the removal of clauses related to a service provider’s past performance history.
Who was present at the committee hearing?
The hearing included the Parliamentary Standing Committee members, along with senior officials such as the Secretary of the Department of School Education under the Ministry of Education and the Chairman of the CBSE.
Does the parliamentary panel have the power to punish CBSE officials directly?
No, the committee does not possess direct executive or punitive authority to independently penalize officials, but it holds the power to demand accountability and can mandate the production of records and testimony under oath.
How should public oversight bodies balance student-led investigations with official institutional procedures in matters of national education policy?