A key recommendation of the panel was multi-step candidate verification, including Aadhaar-based biometric checks to prevent impersonation. The panel noted: “Biometric data of candidates must be matched with Aadhaar Card information (maybe done offline after acquisition of biometric data).”
The National Testing Agency (NTA), responding to TOI’s queries, said not all biometric checks were done at entry gates. Instead, it validated Aadhaar details during application for 96% of the 13.54 lakh candidates and collected biometric data and photos inside exam halls, citing limited time between shifts.
“Aadhaar details were successfully matched for 96% of the 13.54 lakh registered candidates. In JEE (Main), the set of candidates in each of the two shifts is distinct. However, in CUET-UG, there was a significant likelihood that candidates appearing in the first shift also appeared in the second shift on the same day… In such a case, it would not be appropriate to ask students to report for the second shift immediately, thereafter, as taking biometrics requires more time…,” the NTA said.
NTA also said that “For CUET UG 2025, Aadhaar validation was performed only when the candidate’s name, date of birth, and gender matched during online registration,” which indicate that photographs of the candidates were not matched with the Aadhaar data neither at the time of registration or during the exam which could lead to potential impersonation as goes against the committee’s recommended authentication protocol.
This approach leaves a verification gap for the remaining 4% of candidates. More importantly, the Radhakrishnan report called for authentication—not just biometric capture—which is central to preventing impersonation. The report stated, “Essentially, multi-stage authentication of candidate’s identity is envisaged which makes use of Aadhaar, biometrics, and AI-based data analytics,” laying out a detailed authentication protocol.Another issue flagged is the unequal distribution of candidates across exam shifts, which may compromise the credibility of the percentile-based normalisation process. Attendance records reviewed by TOI show sharp imbalances—for example, the physics test had close to 5,000 candidates in one shift and only about 570 in another, with similar patterns observed in mathematics and general aptitude papers. While the National Testing Agency (NTA) did not release detailed subject- and session-wise data, it maintained that “sample sizes were sufficiently large,” pointing to the English exam where about 43,000 candidates were placed in each shift.This raises a critical statistical issue: normalisation assumes comparable cohorts. If sample sizes differ significantly across shifts, percentile rankings may not accurately reflect relative difficulty levels. The question remains unanswered: can a topper among 10,000 candidates be equated with one among 3,000?
On the syllabus front, for physical education, the official syllabus uploaded by NTA states that candidates should, while naming the sports, opt for “one of your choice” for Unit 3. However, students reported that the questions were mandatory with no option. When asked, NTA did not address the syllabus deviation directly. Instead, it stated: “For Physical Education, the panel of subject experts decided not to provide options in Unit 3, as offering choices across 15 different sections was deemed impractical… Questions included in the paper were fundamental in nature… No undue advantage was given to any candidate during the conduct of the examination.” The response didn’t explain why this change wasn’t notified in advance.
When it comes to infrastructure integrity, the Radhakrishnan Committee had advised that test centres be vetted by district-level committees. NTA claimed that the same centres used for JEE (Main) Session II were reused and had been verified by respective district authorities. However, some deputy commissioners reportedly denied knowledge of any such process. In response, NTA stated: “The centres used for JEE (Main) 2025 Session I and Session II were utilized for CUET-UG 2025. All centres were audited, inspected, and verified by the district-level committee for Session II conducted in April 2025.” To the question “…substantiate with reports of DC as not all centres can be common,” NTA did not provide any audit reports. However, it admitted, “While some technical glitches occurred, they were purely of a technical nature. All the candidates were provided full time to appear in the examination.”
In the economics paper, students reported that microeconomics questions—typically covered in Class XI—were included, even though CUET-UG was initially advertised as being based on the Class XII syllabus. The NTA clarified that the questions were drawn from the NCERT curriculum, which includes both micro and macroeconomics. However, students argued that microeconomics was only officially added to the CUET syllabus in March 2025, midway through the academic year, leaving little preparation time. They also pointed to an uneven weightage between micro and macro sections across different shifts, which they said unfairly penalised those who had prepared based on the original Class XII-focused syllabus. The NTA maintained that “CUET (UG) 2025 syllabus is purely based on NCERT textbooks, and questions were framed from both the sections of macro and microeconomics to assess the candidates.”
At one Kanpur centre where the exam was cancelled, students say they are still waiting for a formal notice. NTA responded that all affected candidates were informed individually via SMS, phone, and email, but did not publish any public communication or advisory online. “Their exams were rescheduled… successfully conducted within the scheduled timeframe,” the agency said.
While NTA maintains that CUET-UG 2025 was conducted “successfully” with approximately 78% attendance, several of these issues have cast doubt on the exam’s ability to uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and comparability—critical to high-stakes entrance testing.
(With TOI inputs)