Abhishek Singh, NTA Director General, told the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education he would not label the NEET 2026 paper leak NTA refusal as a "paper leak" during his appearance. The committee had formally summoned NTA Chairperson Pradeep Kumar Joshi, who did not appear; Singh attended in his place.

The panel summoned the NTA chief to present the agency's case and explain actions on May 18, 2026 . Members asked questions about the alleged paper leak, exam security measures and the potential impact of artificial intelligence on test preparation and students’ employability strategies.

NEET 2026 paper leak NTA refusal — what the panel heard

In the hearing, the NTA representative declined to call the incident a paper leak, and instead outlined the agency’s position before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports. The committee sought clarity on how the NTA identifies and responds to breaches of exam integrity and on the steps taken after the NEET 2026 incident.

The committee also raised concerns about how AI tools are changing preparation patterns and sought the NTA’s view on safeguards for future exams. Officials gave an account of NTA processes, but the session did not include detailed public disclosure of evidence or corrective measures shared during the briefing.

NEET 2026 paper leak NTA refusal: who else was summoned

Along with the NTA, the panel summoned representatives from Anthropic India, Pratham, IIT Kanpur, Infosys and IIT Madras to discuss AI’s role in education and related assessment challenges. The summons aimed to hear technical and policy perspectives on AI impact and on improving assessment integrity and student outcomes.

Pradeep Kumar Joshi was summoned to the committee but did not appear; the NTA sent Abhishek Singh to present the agency’s position. The record of the meeting notes the committee’s focus on both the immediate NEET 2026 incident and longer-term concerns about AI in education.

The parliamentary hearing focused on gathering explanations from the NTA and technical stakeholders rather than announcing any adjudicatory outcome. Details such as the number of affected candidates, evidence examined by the committee, or any legal steps were not disclosed during the session.

Parliamentary oversight means further questions and follow-ups are likely. The committee has signalled it will continue to press agencies and technical bodies for clearer responses on exam security and AI-related risks to assessment integrity.