New Delhi, May 29: A political confrontation intensified on Thursday over alleged irregularities in the Central Board of Secondary Education’s digital evaluation system, with Union Minister accusing Leader of Opposition of “selective outrage” over the Board’s association with an education technology firm.
The controversy centres around , an EdTech company that has come under scrutiny following allegations related to discrepancies in CBSE examination evaluation processes.
In a strongly worded post on social media platform X, Piyush Goyal alleged that Rahul Gandhi had ignored the fact that the same company had previously been awarded projects by institutions functioning under Congress-led governments in Karnataka and Telangana.
“Rahul Gandhi suffers from chronic political amnesia. He has done it again … chosen propaganda over facts, theatrics over truth,” the Union Minister stated.
Goyal claimed that several universities operating under Congress governments had signed agreements with the company over the past few years. According to him, entered into an agreement with the firm in November 2025, while reportedly signed a similar agreement in September 2024.
He further alleged that and had also entered into agreements with the company in earlier years.
The Union Minister questioned whether Rahul Gandhi would now accuse Congress-led state governments of collusion or demand resignations from their Chief Ministers if he considered the company controversial.
The remarks came shortly after Rahul Gandhi accused the CBSE of “massive tampering” in examination evaluation processes and questioned the Board’s contract with Coempt Edu Tech.
The Leader of Opposition linked the controversy to a case involving student Vedant Shrivastava, who had alleged discrepancies in his answer sheet evaluation process.
According to reports, the student had applied for a photocopy of his Physics answer sheet after receiving marks he considered unexpectedly low. However, the scanned answer sheet initially provided by CBSE allegedly did not match his handwriting, leading to allegations of procedural lapses and questions regarding transparency.
The CBSE later clarified that an incorrect answer sheet had inadvertently been shared and subsequently provided the correct document to the student after rectifying the error.
Rahul Gandhi described the incident as part of a “deliberate conspiracy” and raised concerns over the integrity of the digital evaluation system used in CBSE examinations and other entrance tests.
He also attempted to connect the controversy with a similar incident in Telangana in 2019 allegedly involving the same company under a different name.
Meanwhile, Union Education Minister defended the CBSE’s handling of the matter and accused Rahul Gandhi of opposing every reform initiative introduced by the government.
“CBSE has already issued its clarification and fulfilled its responsibilities. The process was carried out in accordance with the Government of India’s procurement policy. If any negligence is found, we will take strict action,” Pradhan said.
The Education Minister further accused the Congress leader of repeatedly questioning institutions and technological initiatives, including Digital India, electronic voting machines and administrative reforms.
Pradhan also appealed to political parties not to politicise issues concerning students and examinations.
Rahul Gandhi responded by reiterating his allegations and demanding accountability from the Education Ministry. In another social media post, he questioned who approved the CBSE-Coempt contract and sought responsibility from the government for alleged lapses affecting nearly 18.5 lakh students.
The controversy has sparked wider debate regarding transparency, accountability and technological oversight in large-scale digital evaluation systems used in national examinations.
Education experts note that while digitised evaluation processes have improved speed and efficiency, incidents involving data errors or answer-sheet mismatches can quickly erode public confidence in examination systems if not addressed transparently and promptly.
