Competitive Examinations, Children's Agency, And The Test Of Public Institutions

Manish Thakre

Every year, millions of young people appear for India’s high-stakes competitive examinations. When some of them publicly raise concerns about the conduct or fairness of examinations, they are almost always described simply as “students.” They are indeed students. Yet many of them are also children under Indian and international law, while others have only recently turned eighteen. This distinction matters because it changes how public institutions and society ought to understand and respond to their concerns.

Public concerns about the conduct of competitive examinations have once again highlighted the immense stakes these assessments carry for children and their families. For many, the transition from school to higher education represents far more than an academic milestone; it shapes educational opportunities, career pathways and future possibilities. The pressures associated with these examinations extend well beyond the examination hall.

For millions of families, examinations such as the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), Common University Entrance Test (CUET), National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and other professional entrance examinations represent far more than academic assessments. They shape educational opportunities and future livelihoods. They are also central to India’s ambition of building the skilled human capital needed to compete in an increasingly knowledge-driven global economy.

Many children begin preparing for these examinations soon after completing Class X, choosing their academic streams—Science, Commerce or Arts—with these aspirations already in mind. Preparation often begins at fifteen or sixteen and continues for several years, involving significant emotional and financial investments by families. Consequently, when concerns arise regarding examination fairness, transparency or grievance redressal, the discussion cannot remain confined to administrative efficiency alone. It must also consider the rights, dignity and well-being of the children who participate in these systems.

A child rights framework already exists

India does not need to create an entirely new framework to respond to such situations. The legal and policy foundations already exist; the challenge lies in applying them consistently when children’s interests are affected.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), ratified by India in December 1992, defines a child as every human being below the age of eighteen years (Article 1). Article 3 requires that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. Central to the discussion, Article 12 recognises every child’s right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, with those views being given due weight according to their age and maturity.

This right to be heard does not imply that every demand made by a child must automatically be accepted. Instead, it requires that children’s voices are not dismissed simply because of their age. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in General Comment No. 12 on the right of the child to be heard, emphasised that participation is a fundamental right and requires meaningful opportunities for children to express their views on matters affecting their lives.

India’s constitutional and policy framework reflects similar principles. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. The National Policy for Children, 2013 recognises children as rights-holders and identifies survival, development, protection and participation, including opportunities to express their views in matters affecting them. Likewise, the National Education Policy 2020 promotes a learner-centred approach that supports holistic development, reduces stress and recognises that education cannot be reduced solely to examination outcomes.

Why this matters

The importance of responsive institutions becomes clearer when viewed alongside the broader challenges affecting children’s well-being.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau’s Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India 2024, family problems (3,101), love affairs (1,671), illness (1,347) and failure in examination (1,071) were recorded as the main causes among suicides of children below eighteen years of age. Across all age groups, 14,488 students died by suicide in 2024, accounting for 8.5% of all suicides recorded in India.

The need for responsive educational institutions is also reflected in recent policy initiatives. The Ministry of Education’s Department of School Education and Literacy has issued a Modular Handbook for Teachers and Allied Stakeholders on Early Identification and Intervention of Mental Health Problems in School-Going Children and Adolescents, promoting school-based mental health programmes, teacher awareness, early identification of distress and greater engagement with parents. These measures recognise that protecting children’s well-being requires preventive support alongside academic excellence.

These figures should not be interpreted to suggest that examinations alone cause distress. Children’s experiences are shaped by multiple, interconnected factors, including family expectations, economic circumstances, social pressures, mental health challenges and uncertainty about the future. Nevertheless, the data underscores the need for examination systems and public institutions to recognise the emotional realities surrounding high-stakes assessments and to respond with empathy, transparency and accountability.

The institutional responsibility

Many countries have established independent institutions to ensure that children’s perspectives are reflected in public decision-making. Although institutional models differ, they share a common purpose: safeguarding children’s rights, promoting their participation, and ensuring that their voices are considered in decisions affecting their lives. India has established a comparable institutional framework through the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCRs), established under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

The statutory mandate of these institutions extends well beyond responding to individual complaints. Under Section 13(1) of the Act, NCPCR and SCPCRs are mandated to examine safeguards for child rights, review implementation, undertake research, promote awareness, study international instruments, inquire into violations of child rights, and take suo motu cognisance of matters involving the deprivation of children’s rights or the non-implementation of protective laws and policies. The Commissions also hold civil-court powers to summon witnesses and compel evidence while conducting such inquiries (Section 14), and may recommend prosecution, approach the courts, or seek interim relief for affected children once an inquiry concludes (Section 15). This is precisely the kind of moment in which these statutory mandates become relevant.

International experience also shows that even well-established examination systems are not immune from failures. In 2025, Finland’s digital matriculation examination experienced a nationwide technical disruption affecting multiple upper secondary schools. Authorities acknowledged the disruption and provided compensatory measures for affected candidates. The lesson is not that systems never fail, but that credibility depends on transparent communication, timely correction and maintaining learners’ trust.

When children and young people raise concerns about systems that shape their education, aspirations and future opportunities, a child-rights approach does not require institutions to endorse every demand or prejudge administrative decisions. It requires something more fundamental: that children’s voices are heard through appropriate mechanisms; that their dignity is respected regardless of the outcome; and that concerns affecting them receive fair, timely and transparent consideration.

The responsibility, however, is shared. Parents support children through enormous emotional, social and financial investments. Teachers guide and mentor them. Examination authorities are responsible for conducting fair, transparent and credible assessments. Governments must ensure that public systems function efficiently and remain accountable. Within this shared responsibility, child rights institutions have a distinctive role: ensuring that children’s perspectives remain visible whenever public systems significantly affect their lives.

Looking ahead

Children are India’s future. Their education, capabilities and well-being will shape the country’s economic competitiveness, democratic institutions and social progress for decades to come. Competitive examinations will continue to play a vital role in identifying talent and building the human capital needed in an increasingly competitive global economy.

Precisely because children invest years of discipline, sacrifice and hope in these examinations, they deserve institutions that are prepared to listen when systemic concerns arise. Protecting children’s rights is not only about responding after harm occurs; it is equally about ensuring that children are heard, their dignity is respected, and their rights are upheld before trust is lost. After all, every examination tests students. Moments when children seek to be heard test public institutions.

About the Contributor

Manish Thakre is an independent consultant specializing in climate action, resilience, and inclusive urban development, holds an MSc in Cities from the London School of Economics and Political Science

Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.