The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is facing renewed criticism over its On-Screen Marking (OSM) evaluation system after students raised concerns regarding scanned answer sheets, alleged marking discrepancies, and repeated technical glitches on the post-verification portal.
The controversy surrounding the digital evaluation system intensified after the CBSE Class 12 Board Examination 2026 results were declared, which showed a noticeable dip in the overall pass percentage. With the answer-sheet evaluation via the OSM system, students and parents have increasingly questioned the transparency and effectiveness of the digital assessment process.
On May 20, the Central Board of Secondary Education stated that its portal for obtaining scanned copies of answer books was functioning smoothly. The Board claimed that more than 1.27 lakh applications for 3.87 lakh scanned answer books had been successfully submitted within three hours of the portal becoming operational.
However, the announcement triggered strong reactions from students on social media, with many arguing that the unusually high number of applications reflected dissatisfaction with the evaluation process rather than confidence in the system. Several users questioned the credibility of the OSM mechanism and demanded a return to manual checking of answer scripts.
Students and parents used the social media platform X to tag the Board and seek clarification regarding the digital evaluation process. Some users alleged that scanned copies of answer sheets appeared blurred, making it difficult even for students to read their own handwriting. This led to questions over how evaluators were able to accurately assess answers during the digital marking process.
A section of students also raised concerns regarding step marking in subjects involving lengthy calculations and detailed problem-solving. Some users claimed that marks had not been awarded despite complete steps being shown in answers. Others questioned whether re-evaluation under the OSM system would include proper step marking and whether the Board had any official guidelines explaining the digital marking policy.
The concerns surrounding evaluation quality were accompanied by complaints regarding technical problems on the scanned answer sheet portal. For the third consecutive day, students reported that the website frequently became inaccessible or unresponsive during the application process.
Several candidates alleged that although payment amounts were deducted from their bank accounts, the application status either remained unsuccessful or failed to update on the portal. Students also complained that the website often stopped functioning during the confirmation stage, forcing repeated login attempts.
Others criticised the tele-counselling and support services, stating that they were unable to receive adequate assistance regarding payment failures and technical issues.
The latest developments have once again brought the OSM evaluation system under public scrutiny. Students and social media users have questioned whether blurred scans and digital evaluation practices could have affected final scores and overall result accuracy.
Amid the ongoing criticism, some students have demanded grace marks, while others have called for the complete removal of the OSM system and restoration of manual answer sheet checking.
Earlier, the Central Board of Secondary Education had rejected allegations that answer book scanning under the OSM system was conducted improperly due to inadequate preparation or a shortage of time. The Board had termed such claims “factually incorrect” and maintained that every stage of scanning, quality checks, marking, and evaluation was carried out according to established procedures and under continuous supervision.
While CBSE has repeatedly defended the OSM process and highlighted the successful functioning of the application portal, the Board has not yet issued a separate clarification specifically addressing allegations related to blurred scanned answer sheets that have been circulating online.