NEET paper leak: Why celebrating toppers cannot replace institutional accountability

While one set of students is being detained on the streets of Delhi for demanding accountability over the NEET-UG paper leak, another is being celebrated on television screens as the model NEET aspirant.

As allegations of a compromised examination have snowballed into a CBI investigation, nationwide demonstrations, police crackdowns and a political storm, sections of the media—reinforced by the government's public messaging—have begun elevating the stories of toppers who chose to stay home and study instead of protesting.

The result is a powerful counter-narrative: the answer to a crisis of institutions lies not in questioning the system but in succeeding within it.

There is nothing inherently objectionable about celebrating excellence. Every year, toppers inspire millions of students through their discipline, resilience and hard work. Nor should their achievements be diminished because the examination they appeared for became embroiled in controversy.

The problem begins when these exceptional individuals are made to carry a political or ideological burden they never volunteered for. Their stories cease to be merely stories of success; they become answers to questions they were never asked.

The most striking example came in an interview by NDTV's Defence Editor Shiv Aroor with NEET AIR-2 Panshul Bansal. The headline read: Why Go To Protest When I Could Study, Improve My Score": NEET Topper To NDTV. It was a headline that immediately transformed a personal choice into a public statement.

Curiously, the interview itself was far more nuanced than the headline suggested. Bansal spoke about the disappointment he felt when the original examination was cancelled, how he viewed the re-test as an opportunity to improve, and how his score rose from 706 to 715. When asked directly about the protests sweeping the country, however, he declined to take a position, saying he would rather not comment on them.

The media's emphasis on toppers was not confined to one interview.

AIR-1 Aryan Gupta's success story quickly became a staple across news platforms, with headlines highlighting his gruelling study schedule, discipline and advice to future aspirants.

Such profiles are a familiar feature of every examination season and, in normal circumstances, entirely justified. But this was no ordinary examination cycle.

The country was in the midst of a crisis over the credibility of NEET itself. Against that backdrop, the relentless focus on individual success stories—however inspiring by itself—began to shift public attention from the integrity of the examination to the perseverance of those who excelled in it.

If Aryan Gupta represented the ideal of relentless hard work, AIR-2 Panshul Bansal would soon come to embody something more: the student whose personal choice not to protest was elevated into a public narrative.

Yet the headline foregrounded one remark: that he chose to stay home and study instead of joining the protests.

The issue is not whether Bansal made the right decision.

For an aspirant focused on securing admission to a medical college, dedicating additional weeks to preparation is entirely understandable. The issue is why this particular sentence became the defining takeaway of the interview.

The framing quietly creates a moral binary. On one side stands the diligent student, focused, disciplined and committed to self-improvement. On the other stands the protester on the street. The debate subtly shifts. Instead of asking whether lakhs of aspirants had reason to doubt the integrity of the examination, the conversation becomes: why didn't they simply study harder?

Govt-media-PR nexus?

That framing did not remain confined to one interview. The same quote quickly travelled across mainstream news platforms, becoming one of the defining narratives of the day.

Around the same time, Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan publicly met Bansal, congratulating him on securing AIR-2 and praising his dedication, perseverance and aspiration. There is nothing unusual about an education minister felicitating a national topper. Such gestures are routine and deserved.

But symbolism matters.

At a moment when students across the country were questioning the credibility of the examination system, the public image receiving official and media attention was not of those demanding institutional accountability but of the student who embodied faith in individual effort.

This is not unique to education.

Modern capitalism has perfected the art of telling stories through exceptional individuals. The billionaire entrepreneur, the startup founder, the self-made millionaire — these figures are real, admirable and deserving of recognition. Yet they often perform another function.

They encourage society to see structural problems through the lens of individual success. If one person could make it, perhaps the system works after all. Aspiration becomes a substitute for accountability.

The topper performs a remarkably similar role during moments of institutional crisis.

Celebrating excellence, evading accountability

American Political philosopher Michael Sandel, who teaches at Harvard University in his popular book The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? argues that modern societies often overestimate the role of personal effort while underestimating the institutions and circumstances that make success possible.

Merit deserves celebration, Sandel reminds us, but celebrating merit cannot become an excuse to stop examining whether the rules of the game are fair.

That insight feels particularly relevant to the NEET controversy. The protests were never about proving that hard work does not matter. Every student on the streets had already invested months, often years, preparing for one of India's toughest examinations. Their demand was not for easier questions or guaranteed ranks. Their demand was for an examination process they could trust.

Seen in that light, the oft-repeated question—why protest when you can study—answers something entirely different from what the protesters were asking.

One can prepare for an examination and still believe the examination system requires scrutiny. One can admire toppers while insisting that institutions remain accountable. The two positions are not contradictory. They become contradictory only through editorial framing.

The public recognised this distinction.

Among the many reactions on X, one by Prateek Aaryan captured the sentiment succinctly: "The people protesting aren't trying to improve their scores, they're trying to improve the system that decides them." His most striking observation came in the next line: "The freedom to say, 'Why Go To Protest When I Could Study,' exists only because people before you chose to protest instead of staying silent."

One need not agree with every word of that argument to appreciate the democratic principle underlying it. Throughout history, institutions have been strengthened not only by those who excelled within them but also by citizens who questioned them when they faltered.

Universities became more accessible because students protested. Labour protections exist because workers organised. Civil rights expanded because ordinary people refused to remain silent. Individual excellence and collective action have never been enemies; they have often been partners in democratic progress.

This is why the debate surrounding the NEET paper leak deserves greater care than it has received. Congratulating toppers is entirely appropriate. But when those stories become the dominant lens through which a crisis of institutional credibility is viewed, they risk crowding out the more urgent conversation.

The question before the country was never whether brilliant students exist. Their success is beyond dispute. The real question was whether every equally hardworking student could trust that the examination determining their future had been conducted fairly.

Democracies cannot afford to answer questions about institutions with stories about individuals alone. A rank list can celebrate merit. It cannot restore public confidence. That requires transparency, accountability and a willingness to confront uncomfortable questions—qualities no topper, however exceptional, can provide on behalf of the system.

The NEET toppers deserve every accolade they have earned. But they should not become the answer to a question that belongs, not to students, but to the institutions entrusted with their future.