CBSE On-Screen Marking (OSM) Explained: Why Class 12 Digital Evaluation Faced Backlash

What OSM means: On-Screen Marking is a digital evaluation system in which examiners do not mark physical answer booklets at all. Instead, the handwritten answer sheets are scanned into high-quality images, uploaded to a secure online platform, and assessed by evaluators directly on a computer screen. The marks are entered question-by-question into the software, which then totals them automatically. CBSE's platform for this is branded "OnMark."

The four-stage workflow: The process moves through four broad stages. First, Writing — students write their exams at designated centres, after which the booklets are sent to CBSE regional offices and put through a "secrecy" process to conceal the candidate's identity and keep evaluation anonymous. Second, Scanning — each booklet is digitally scanned, and officials are meant to check that pages are clear, complete, and correctly uploaded before the digitised sheets enter the OSM system. Third, Marking — examiners log in with credentials, read the scanned scripts online against an uploaded marking scheme, and award marks digitally. Fourth, Submission — a sample of evaluated scripts is meant to be re-checked by senior evaluators (Head Examiners and Additional Head Examiners), after which the marked scripts are finalised in the system.

Why anonymisation matters: To prevent bias, the candidate's identifying details are masked before evaluation. CBSE uses physical "flying slips" to cover identity information during this anonymisation stage — a step that becomes important later, because errors in handling these slips were linked to scripts being matched to the wrong candidate.

The official rationale: CBSE notified the shift through a circular dated 9 February 2026, positioning OSM as part of its drive to make evaluation more uniform, efficient, transparent, and secure. The Board listed several promised benefits: elimination of totalling and tabulation errors through automatic computation, faster declaration of results, reduced regional variation in marking, less physical transport of answer booklets, lower manpower and logistics costs, and the ability for teachers across affiliated schools — including those abroad — to evaluate remotely without travelling to centres. CBSE also described it as an "environmentally sustainable" paperless process.

Link to policy reform: The move was framed as aligned with the assessment-reform thrust of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which calls for more reliable, technology-enabled, and standardised assessment. CBSE simultaneously introduced other reforms for 2026, including the option of holding board exams twice a year. Notably, the Board initially indicated that the enhanced accuracy of digital evaluation would make post-result verification of marks unnecessary, and proposed discontinuing it for Class 12 — a decision that became contentious once errors surfaced.

A key clarification: For 2026, OSM was applied to Class 12 only; Class 10 answer sheets continued to be evaluated in physical mode.

Allegations of a rushed, untested rollout: Several principals, evaluators, and senior teachers argued that the system was deployed at full national scale — covering all 116 subjects — without adequate piloting. The minutes of a June 2024 meeting of CBSE's Governing Body (its highest decision-making body) had reportedly recommended implementing OSM across all subjects only after pilot projects in selected subjects and regional offices. Critics say this phased pilot never materialised, and that a dry run was instead conducted only in around five schools involving about 100 teachers in January 2026, with formal onboarding beginning only in mid-February — even as exams were underway.

Training and usability problems: Teachers reported that challenges went beyond basic computer literacy. Initially, evaluators were asked to assess 20 answer books a day, later raised to 25 — targets many found difficult to meet, with some saying they could properly correct far fewer. Evaluators described the physical strain of long screen hours, the difficulty older teachers faced with the interface, and being repeatedly recalled to clear backlogs that piled up in subjects such as Physics.

Quality and integrity concerns: Common complaints included blurred, poorly scanned, or hard-to-read scripts; the system logging evaluators out and a script later appearing as already checked; and pressure to complete a booklet once started even when scan quality was poor. CBSE itself reportedly flagged thousands of blurred scans and a small number of mismatched scripts, while cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the portal prompted intervention by government and IIT experts.

The vendor question: Reports highlighted that the OnMark platform was run by a private vendor selected as the lowest financial bidder shortly before the full rollout. This raised a recurring governance concern in public procurement — the risk of treating the lowest bid as automatically the most suitable bid, without sufficient "fitness-for-purpose" scrutiny for a high-stakes system affecting millions of students.

A long road, then a sudden leap: OSM is not new to CBSE. The Board first experimented with on-screen marking around 2013–14 for select subjects and regional offices, working with technology vendors, but infrastructural and operational constraints prevented a nationwide expansion at the time. A limited pilot was again proposed for small-volume subjects (those with fewer examinees) around 2024–25. The controversy of 2026 arose because the Board moved from limited experimentation to full-scale, all-subject implementation in a single cycle.

International practice: Digital evaluation is well established globally. In the United Kingdom, examination bodies such as AQA, OCR, and Pearson Edexcel have used online marking for years, and the regulator Ofqual has cited improved quality control, efficiency, and examiner monitoring as the rationale. The International Baccalaureate (IB), whose exams are taken in over 150 countries, also relies heavily on digital evaluation. Education researchers have noted that studies generally find online marking can improve consistency in applying mark schemes and aid standardisation — but they caution that scanning quality, software performance, and implementation readiness critically affect outcomes.

The expert framing: Commenting in press analyses, Prof. Edward Vickers of Fukuoka University argued that the issue may lie not with the idea of OSM itself but with whether the system was properly trialled and whether evaluators were ready. Dr Latika Gupta of Delhi University cautioned that speeding up marking should not come at the cost of the collective deliberation among teachers that helps maintain marking standards. The broad expert consensus is that technology should assist, not replace, the human judgement of markers.

Nature of the body: The Central Board of Secondary Education is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, Government of India (it is not a constitutional or statutory body created by a specific Act, but functions under the Union government). It conducts the Class 10 and Class 12 examinations for affiliated schools in India and across many countries, making it one of the largest school examination systems in the world.

Why it matters for governance: Because CBSE administers a high-stakes, life-shaping examination for lakhs of students, its decisions on evaluation directly affect college admissions, equal opportunity, and public trust in the examination system. This is why a technical reform in marking quickly became a question of administrative accountability and student rights.

The wider reform context — PARAKH: NEP 2020 envisaged a new National Assessment Centre called PARAKH (Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development), set up under NCERT, to bring standards, benchmarks, and consistency across school boards in India. OSM fits into this larger push toward standardised, technology-enabled assessment — which is precisely why its rollout problems carry lessons beyond a single year.

The rights at stake: A flawed evaluation that lowers marks unfairly can affect a student's admission and future, raising questions under fundamental rights. The PIL before the Allahabad High Court reportedly invoked Article 14 (equality before the law and equal protection of laws) — arguing that an arbitrary or error-prone evaluation treats students unequally — and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to fair procedure and dignity, and which connects to the right to education. Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6–14, reflecting the constitutional weight given to education.

The current legal challenge: The PIL, filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, described the hurried implementation as a "systemic institutional failure," and sought, among other things, an independent expert committee to examine the rollout, free re-evaluation of affected scripts, and a review of fees charged for re-evaluation. The court sought responses from the Union government, CBSE, and the Uttar Pradesh government.

Echoes of past disputes: This is not the first time CBSE's evaluation system has been litigated. Around 2017, after CBSE abolished re-evaluation, courts examined cases where correct answers had been awarded zero marks and questioned the removal of re-evaluation. In 2021, after Class 12 exams were cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic, CBSE adopted an alternative assessment formula based on past performance, which was challenged before the Supreme Court. Such cases establish a consistent judicial theme: the evaluation process must be fair, verifiable, and backed by a working grievance-redressal mechanism.

Principles of sound e-governance: Good e-governance is not merely digitisation; it rests on principles such as phased implementation and piloting, rigorous testing, capacity-building of users, robust grievance redressal, data security, and transparency. The OSM experience is being read as a case study in how a technically sound idea can falter at the implementation stage when these principles are not followed.

Where the gaps appeared: Critics point to a compressed timeline, an apparently skipped or inadequate pilot, insufficient evaluator training, procurement focused on lowest cost, and the early proposal to remove verification (the very safety valve students rely on). CBSE's defence — three layers of quality checks and rapid cybersecurity intervention — illustrates the counter-argument that the system's design includes safeguards, even if execution faltered.

The way forward: Possible measures discussed in the public domain include genuine multi-cycle pilots before scaling, certified and adequate evaluator training, realistic daily targets that protect marking quality, mandatory minimum scan-quality standards, an accessible and time-bound re-evaluation mechanism, independent technical and academic oversight, and strict vendor accountability with penalties for failure. The underlying lesson for UPSC: reform legitimacy depends as much on careful process and trust-building as on the technology itself.