Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The latest arrest by Bihar’s Economic Offences Unit (EOU) in the Lakhisarai NEET impersonation case has exposed a huge vulnerability: the system designed to authenticate candidates may be only as secure as the people operating it.
The NEET-UG (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate) re-examination was supposed to restore the faith shaken by a question paper-leak controversy. In Bihar’s Lakhisarai district, however, the retest on June 21 bared a different challenge: the alleged complicity of those entrusted with securing the examination itself.
advertisement
Four months on, the EOU of Bihar police has made an arrest that brings the people operating the verification system back into focus. On October 9, the EOU arrested Pramod Kumar, a resident of Jahana village in Lakhisarai, in connection with the Kiul police station case no. 64/2026. He is now in judicial custody.
The case concerns allegations that proxy candidates gave the retest at the Kendriya Vidyalaya examination centre in Khagaur, with the assistance of biometric operators and supervisors. According to the EOU, Kumar admitted his involvement and told investigators that he had obtained the contract for biometric work for the Lakhisarai NEET examination through two individuals, Vikas Kumar and Rahul. The EOU states that, in collusion with Md Shahzad, Subodh and Rohit Kumar alias Murari and with the assistance of biometric operators, fake candidates were allowed to enter the examination centre in place of the genuine candidates.
The human interface
Kumar’s arrest brings the procurement and operation of biometric verification to the centre of the inquiry: who secured the contract, who deployed the personnel, and whether those responsible for checking candidates’ identities helped facilitate the very impersonation the system was meant to prevent.
Biometric verification is designed to establish that individuals presenting themselves at an examination centre are indeed the registered candidates. The efficacy of the process depends on personnel conducting checks, handling identity records, resolving discrepancies and authenticating candidate identity.
If those personnel collude with impersonators, the security system faces a problem that technology alone may not resolve. The question is not necessarily whether fingerprints or digital records can be defeated, but whether the procedures surrounding their use can be manipulated.
In the Lakhisarai investigation, the EOU’s October 10 statement alleges that biometric operators helped proxy candidates enter the examination centre. It does not, however, establish every step by which the alleged impersonation was accomplished. The precise mechanism of the fraud will have to emerge from the evidence gathered during the investigation.
A retest and another breach of trust
The June examination had been organised after the NEET-UG test held on May 3 was cancelled amidst the paper-leak controversy. The National Testing Agency (NTA) scheduled the re-examination for June 21, with the stated objective of providing candidates an opportunity to take the test again. The retest itself was conducted under a security framework that included candidate verification.
Yet the same day brought allegations of impersonation in Lakhisarai. Police subsequently registered cases naming 27 accused in the Kiul FIR, including alleged proxy candidates and members of the biometric verification team.
The contrast is stark. The paper-leak controversy raised questions about the security of examination material before the test. The Lakhisarai case raises questions about the integrity of candidate identification at the examination centre. These are different vulnerabilities, but they lead to the same concern: whether a national examination can guarantee that every candidate has a fair and equal opportunity to compete.
The alleged racket also appears to have involved a network rather than a lone impersonator. The EOU statement names 27 accused in the Kiul case, including registered candidates, alleged fake candidates, biometric operators and supervisors. It says chargesheets have been filed against 14 accused previously arrested in the case.
Kumar’s alleged involvement extends beyond the Kiul case. The EOU says investigators have also found his complicity in two other NEET-related cases registered at the Kawaya police station in Lakhisarai, numbered 244/26 and 245/26.
Accountability beyond the exam hall
The case raises a broader question about the oversight of outsourced services in high-stakes examinations. If the EOU’s allegations are substantiated, securing the biometric contract and deploying personnel were not merely administrative functions; they were potential points of vulnerability in the examination’s security chain.
The investigation must establish whether the alleged manipulation was confined to particular individuals or reflected wider weaknesses in the selection, supervision and monitoring of personnel responsible for verification. It must also determine the roles of the registered candidates, the alleged impersonators and any intermediaries.
For the NTA, the implications go beyond one district. Digital identity checks can strengthen examination security, but their effectiveness depends on transparent procedures, independent oversight and accountability for those operating them. Possible safeguards include audits of biometric records, stricter checks on contractors, independent monitoring and documented procedures for handling identity discrepancies. Whether any of these measures would have prevented the alleged fraud in Lakhisarai will depend on the precise method used.
The EOU has invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, in the Kiul case. Its press release says the investigation is continuing, including verification of the roles of other people and further legal action where warranted.
For candidates and their families, the stakes are immediate. NEET determines access to medical education and its credibility rests on the belief that admission is earned through a fair examination. Every alleged instance of impersonation threatens that trust—not only for those whose identities may have been misused but also for those who sit the examination honestly.
The October arrest has brought the alleged role of the biometric contractor into sharper focus. Whether the investigation establishes a wider conspiracy remains to be seen. But the central question is clear: a system designed to authenticate candidates can be only as secure as the people entrusted with operating it.
Subscribe to India Today Magazine
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
