In an unprecedented escalation of academic security measures, the Central Government is planning to deploy the Indian Air Force (IAF) to transport confidential question papers for the upcoming NEET-UG 2026 re-examination scheduled on June 21. The high-stakes logistics strategy was hammered out during an emergency joint meeting chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, and Communications Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia. Moving completely away from traditional state courier and Department of Posts networks, the multi-agency overhaul aims to eliminate all structural vulnerabilities following the cancellation of the original May 3 national medical entrance exam, which was compromised by a widespread pre-exam leak scandal. The PMO is directly auditing the deployment of military aircraft, which officials state is also designed to bypass unpredictable pre-monsoon weather bottlenecks across remote sectors. Meanwhile, opposition benches have sharply criticized the decision, questioning if calling in the military exposes a foundational collapse of trust in the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) independent institutional machinery.

In the most damaging personal blow yet to the leadership of India’s collapsed edtech empire, a Singapore court on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, sentenced Byju Raveendran to six months in prison for contempt of court. The severe punitive order follows a high-stakes asset-tracing lawsuit filed by a subsidiary of the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), with the judiciary ruling that Raveendran systematically defied multiple explicit mandates dating back to April 2024 to disclose his global holdings. In addition to the jail sentence, the founder has been ordered to immediately surrender to Singapore law enforcement, shell out S$90,000 (~$70,500) in legal costs, and hand over hidden ownership files for Beeaar Investco Pte—an offshore vehicle used to shield remaining company equities. While Raveendran immediately took to social media to downplay the committal order as a mere “procedural disclosure dispute” rather than a finding of corporate fraud, the ruling seals a staggering fall from grace for an entrepreneur whose startup commanded a breathtaking $22 billion peak valuation just four years ago.