CBSE rejects Rahul Gandhi's ‘erroneous, misleading' allegations over Coempt Edutech contract

LEader of oppositeness in the Lok Sabha, Rahul indira gandhi, demanded a juridical enquiry and makeup of a Special investigating Team (SIT) to probe the “entire scam” involving the CBSE exam this year and alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has remained silent over the “massive tampering” of the CBSE results.In a video message to the students and their parents, Gandhi targeted the government over COEMPT company’s role in the digital evaluation, leading to the OSM controversy. However, CBSE rejected the allegations and said the Hyderabad-based company was awarded the contract after due process and in line with government guidelines and norms.“The company COEMPT, which was handed this responsibility, had already pulled off the same scam in Telangana in 2019 and 2023 under the name Globarena. The same OSM based errors were responsible for death by suicide of 23 young Indian students. This was a public information. Yet, the CBSE chose the same company. It took us 30 seconds to figure our that this company was called something else earlier. I am absolutely certain that CBSE and the government of India were aware of this company’s background,” Gandhi said in the video on X, which he wanted the students to share.ALSO READ | ‘No accountability’, says Rahul Gandhi on PM Modi's silence amid CBSE class 12 results fiasco“Name changed—but the intent the same, the nature the same. Everyone knew the history, yet the contract was still awarded. The future of 1.85 million children was handed over to such a company, and no one batted an eye. This isn't a mistake—it's a deliberate conspiracy. There has been a massive tampering in the CBSE exam results, leaving millions of children across the country and their parents in shock. And Mr. Modi? As always—no answers, no accountability, no shame,” Gandhi said. Asking for a judicial probe, Gandhi posed four questions. “Why was the CBSE contract given to COEMPT, and on whose orders? Which rules and procedures were bypassed to award this contract to the company? COEMPT had already been embroiled in controversies under the name Globarena—why didn't CBSE know about it? Why weren't background checks done? What exactly is the connection between COEMPT's management and the Modi government?” He asked on X.Replying to Gandhi’s X post, CBSE said that the board rejects the allegations regarding the award of contract to Coempt Edutech. “It is erroneous, misleading and not based on facts. CBSE has followed the General Financial Rules protocols scrupulously in the awarding of the contract to the agency. CBSE floated the RFP for Digital Evaluation of Answer books for Board Exams 2026 on Central Public Procurement portal on 28.08.2025 and awarded the contract to the qualified bidder,” it said.ALSO READ | Did 19-year-old Nisarga Adhikary hack CBSE OSM portal? Claims, counterclaims explained"The contract was given to Coempt Edutech after due process and in line with government rules and guidelines. We followed all procedures. The allegations made by Rahul Gandhi are wrong," an education ministry official said.HT reached out to Coempt but did not receive any response.The demand for an inquiry gained momentum after the Odisha Parents' Federation (OPF) wrote to Chief Secretary Anu Garg seeking a high-level investigation into the digital evaluation contract that was awarded to Hyderabad-based Coempt Edutech Private Limited, formerly known as Globarena Technology Pvt Ltd, the same company that is at the centre of current OSM controversy of CBSE.Basudeb Bhatta, president of OPF alleged that the company had a terrible track record in doing evaluation. Bhatta elleged that in 2019 Telangana Intermediate examination, 32 students reportedly died by suicide.When the Telangana intermediate exam results were announced on April 18, 2019, several mistakes came to light. A total of 3.5 lakh students failed the exams, and at least three lakh students have found discrepancies in the results. Many bright students who scored over 90 per cent of marks in the first year, failed in the second year. There were large scale complaints from students that they were awarded zero, one or two marks in the subjects.