
Need to address statistical issues in entrance, recruitment exams: NSC Chairman to government
The government has been called on to form a comprehensive policy on certain statistical issues related to entrance and recruitment exams by Rajeeva Laxman Karandikar, Chairman of the National Statistical Commission (NSC), who argued on Sunday that different agencies conducting their own exams have their own methods that can lead to dissatisfaction among candidates and legal proceedings.
Speaking at the 19th Statistics Day organised by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), Karandikar said statistical issues such as negative marking and normalisation of marks in examinations that are being conducted online and see lakhs of candidates should be addressed 'appropriately'.
'The fact that when such a large number (of candidates) appear (for exams), we don't have computer systems which simultaneously 27 lakh candidates can write,' Karandikar said, referring to an earlier recruitment exam held by the railways. 'So we have parallel exams, or exams in phases, different question papers. Then the question comes: how do we compare them? This is a strictly statistical question.'
'Somehow, each agency goes on its own way to define the policy: there is a question of negative marking, normalisation. And each agency declares its own formula which is different. That leads to dissatisfaction, especially from the candidates that don't make it, some of them making it to the court system,' the NSC Chairman added.
In 2019, Karandikar was part of an expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court to suggest ways to deal with fraud in online examinations. The committee – led by retired Supreme Court justice GS Singhvi – was formed after the alleged leak of the Staff Selection Commission's Combined Graduate Level 2017 question papers, which led to massive protests. On Sunday, Karandikar said the expert committee had written a report just before COVID 'and perhaps that report is lying somewhere'.
'The point is that normalisation and negative marking, both are statistical questions. And perhaps – which body in government, I don't know, because there are multiple stakeholders – comprehensive effort should be made to create one group which gives thought to all this, brings in all the stakeholders, and comes out with one policy,' Karandikar added.
'Precision policymaking'
Moderating a panel discussion at the Statistics Day event – held to commemorate the birth anniversary of famed statistician PC Mahalanobis – Shamika Ravi, member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, said India was moving into an era of 'precision policymaking'.
According to Ravi, given the size of the country, indicators such as the infant mortality rate and even the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) don't mean much at an all-India level, although such measures are needed for comparisons.
'But the reality is, policymaking largely depends on highly localised estimates, which is the effort we are now doing. We are moving towards district-level estimates because a lot of policymaking requires local, unbiased, as precise or as close to the truth – that's what an unbiased estimate is… We are moving into the realm of what is called precision policymaking. And precision policymaking, then and therefore, requires data which is representative at the local level, whatever local we define. We have now moved beyond aspirational districts to aspirational blocks,' Ravi said.
Also speaking at the same event, MoSPI Secretary Saurabh Garg said it was essential the statistics ministry produces data which is 'machine readable' given the advent of artificial intelligence and machine learning and follows basic standards and norms so that data can be more effectively used for decision making. Towards this, the ministry is looking at data and statistics at a much broader level, Garg said, with a focus on ensuring that the data produced by different departments and ministries within the government – or administrative data – is focused and usable.
Siddharth Upasani is a Deputy Associate Editor with The Indian Express. He reports primarily on data and the economy, looking for trends and changes in the former which paint a picture of the latter. Before The Indian Express, he worked at Moneycontrol and financial newswire Informist (previously called Cogencis). Outside of work, sports, fantasy football, and graphic novels keep him busy.
... Read More
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC turns down plea for exclusive control of Mahabodhi temple to Buddhists
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea that sought handing over exclusive control of the Mahabodhi temple in Bihar's Bodh Gaya to Buddhists, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court. The Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar. (File Photo) The plea, filed by lawyer and former Maharashtra minister Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare, challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, which entrusted a nine-member committee with the temple's management, of which a majority are Hindus. Refusing to entertain the petition, a bench of justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, said, 'How can we issue mandamus? You please approach the high court. This is not maintainable under Article 32.' The petition claimed that the management of the Mahabodhi temple should be with the Buddhists and the Act was unconstitutional for violating the right of Buddhists to profess their religion and manage their religious institutions. 'Inclusion of members in the committee who are non-Buddhists i.e. Hindus is violative of protections guaranteed to the Buddhist citizens of India and the Lord Buddha himself guaranteed under Articles 19 (right to fundamental freedoms), 21 (life and liberty), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to administer institutions), 28 and 29 (minority rights) of the Constitution of India,' the petition stated. Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre pointed out that due to mismanagement and indifference to the temple, the sacred Bodhi tree at the site is in danger of decay, as found out by a committee of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The bench dismissed the petition allowing the petitioner to raise these issues before the high court. 'We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to approach the high court.' While the definition of Hindus includes Buddhists as well, the religious community was recognised as a minority in 1993 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The petition, filed by advocate Jaydip Pati stated that the Mahabodhi temple is the holiest Buddhist shrine in India and is also a World Heritage site since the year 2002, which is not under the exclusive management of Buddhists. It said, 'Though Buddhists are defined as being part of Hindus, their independent right to profess their religion is also recognized. The said recognition therefore confers rights of Buddhists to profess their religion as per their own choice.' The petitioner argued that the surroundings and vicinity of the area, including the area of the temple, which is now under the possession of the Bodh Gaya Temple Committee used to be under control of Lord Buddha. 'In effect, the idol of Lord Buddha is the owner of the land. It is therefore submitted that the ownership of the site is vested in Lord Buddha as a juristic person.'


Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain Lalit Modi's plea seeking that BCCI pay penalty imposed on him by ED
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that Modi could pursue civil remedies seeking indemnification. The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the former IPL chairperson against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea, Bar and Bench reported. Modi has been under investigation by Indian authorities for alleged foreign exchange violations and a Rs 425-crore television rights deal for the 2009 edition of the IPL with World Sports Group. He fled India after attending only one interrogation session with the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate officials in Mumbai. In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a fine of Rs 121.56 crore on several entities, including the BCCI, its then chairperson N Srinivasan and others. Out of this amount, Modi had been ordered to pay Rs 10.65 crore, Bar and Bench reported. The penalty, which was part of the larger Enforcement Directorate investigation into the 2009 edition of the IPL, was imposed after it was alleged that over Rs 243 crore was allegedly transferred outside India in contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act regulations. On December 19, the High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay the penalty, calling it 'frivolous' and 'wholly misconceived', PTI reported. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on Modi. In his petition, Modi had said that he served as the BCCI vice president and the chairperson of the IPL governing council when the alleged violations took place. He argued that on this account, the BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws. However, the High Court, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, said that the BCCI was not considered a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence no writ could be issued against it, PTI reported. Modi subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the bench reiterated that the BCCI was not a 'state' under Article 12 and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organising sports events, Live Law reported.


Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi's plea asking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi's plea seeking an order directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of ₹ 10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that Lalit Modi could pursue civil remedies available under the law but refused to compel the BCCI to bear the penalty amount. This Supreme Court decision follows a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court which had termed Lalit Modi's petition 'frivolous and wholly misconceived,' while imposing a cost of ₹ 1 lakh on him. The Bombay High Court had observed that the penalty was personally imposed on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine. Lalit Modi had contended that during his tenure as the BCCI's vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council—a subcommittee of the BCCI—the board was obliged under its bylaws to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity. However, the Bombay High Court referred to a 2005 Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Bombay HC held that no writ could be issued against the BCCI in matters unrelated to the discharge of public functions. 'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI,' the High Court had stated. Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi had filed the petition in 2018, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court on Monday, 30 June, upheld this dismissal, reiterating that Lalit Modi's plea was without merit.