On 3 June 2026, Bihar witnessed a bizarre controversy that perfectly encapsulates the growing crisis within Bharat’s coaching industry. Following the declaration of Bihar Police Constable Recruitment Examination results, two prominent coaching institutes engaged in a public battle over claims of student selections. One institution claimed that over 12,000 of its students had cleared the examination, while another claimed nearly 10,000 successful candidates. The combined figure exceeded 22,000 selections, even though the total number of vacancies in the recruitment process was only 19,838. What began as a dispute over banners and posters reportedly escalated into violence, police complaints, and arrests. The episode exposed a troubling reality: for many coaching institutes, marketing has become more important than education itself.

Manufacturing success through marketing

Perhaps the most alarming trend is the systematic appropriation of students’ achievements. Every examination season produces the same spectacle. As soon as results are declared, newspapers, social media platforms, and city billboards are flooded with advertisements featuring toppers’ photographs and ranks. Multiple coaching institutes often claim the same student as their own success story.

The case of NEET 2025 topper Keshav Mittal demonstrated this phenomenon vividly. Multiple major coaching brands simultaneously advertised him as their student, creating confusion among parents and aspirants. Similar controversies emerged in the cases of NEET topper Tanishka in 2022, NEET topper Shoaib Aftab in 2020, and JEE Advanced topper Sarvesh Mehtani in 2017. In many instances, institutions relied on a student’s participation in a test series, interview guidance program, or distance-learning module to portray them as products of their full-time coaching system.

This practice effectively converts hardworking students into marketing assets. Years of personal dedication, discipline, and self-study are overshadowed by corporate branding campaigns designed to maximize admissions and revenue.

Selling dreams, not education

The coaching industry’s business model increasingly revolves around aspiration rather than education. Institutions routinely project extraordinary success rates while withholding crucial information regarding the actual nature of their involvement.

Several investigations by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) revealed that coaching institutes prominently advertised successful candidates without disclosing whether those students had enrolled in comprehensive classroom programs or merely attended short-term interview guidance sessions. Such omissions create a misleading impression that the institute was solely responsible for the student’s achievement.

For anxious parents seeking certainty in an intensely competitive environment, these advertisements often function as powerful psychological tools. The message is simple: join this institute, and success is guaranteed. Reality, however, is rarely that straightforward.

Government action reveals the scale of the problem

The intervention of the Central Consumer Protection Authority has provided a rare glimpse into the extent of the deception. Over the past several years, authorities have imposed penalties on multiple coaching institutes for misleading advertisements, false representations, and concealment of material facts. Investigations have repeatedly found discrepancies between promotional claims and actual student records.

One of the most revealing findings emerged when authorities examined claims made by various UPSC coaching institutes. According to official scrutiny, several institutes collectively claimed thousands of successful candidates despite the actual number of available selections being significantly lower. In multiple cases, candidates counted as institutional successes had merely participated in free mock interviews rather than undergoing full coaching programs.

These findings raise serious questions about transparency, ethics, and accountability within an industry that profoundly influences the lives of millions of young Bharatiyas.

The real victims: students and families

The greatest victims of this system are not regulatory authorities or competing coaching centers but students and their families. Many households invest life savings, borrow money, or make enormous financial sacrifices to afford coaching fees. When institutions exaggerate their effectiveness or misrepresent success rates, students make critical educational decisions based on incomplete or misleading information.

The emotional consequences are equally severe. Unrealistic marketing creates unrealistic expectations. When success does not materialize, students often internalize failure without realizing that they were sold an illusion in the first place.

Drishti IAS penalised: When interview guidance was presented as full coaching success

One of the most revealing examples of misleading advertising in Bharat’s coaching industry emerged in October 2025, when the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed a ₹5 lakh penalty on Drishti IAS for allegedly publishing deceptive claims regarding its UPSC Civil Services Examination results. The action was taken after authorities found discrepancies between the institute’s promotional claims and the actual nature of its association with many successful candidates.

Drishti IAS had prominently advertised that 216 candidates selected in the UPSC Civil Services Examination 2022 were associated with the institute. The advertisement featured photographs and names of successful candidates, creating the impression that the institute had played a substantial role in guiding all of them through one of the country’s toughest examinations. However, the subsequent investigation painted a very different picture.

According to the findings of the CCPA, nearly three-fourths of the candidates featured in the advertisement had not undergone comprehensive classroom coaching at the institute. Out of the 216 successful candidates highlighted in the promotional campaign, 162 had merely participated in the institute’s free Interview Guidance Program (IGP). These candidates had already cleared the preliminary and main examinations through their own preparation before joining the interview guidance sessions. In other words, the most difficult stages of the examination process had already been completed before the institute’s involvement began.

Regulators concluded that the advertisement failed to disclose this crucial distinction. By presenting all 216 candidates together under a single success claim, the institute allegedly created the impression that its coaching programs were directly responsible for their achievements. Such omissions, according to the CCPA, amounted to a misleading representation under consumer protection laws because students and parents could reasonably conclude that the institute had played a significant role throughout the candidates’ UPSC journey.

What made the episode even more significant was that it was not an isolated incident. The penalty imposed in 2025 was the second action taken against the institute for similar advertising practices. Earlier, authorities had also penalized the organization over claims relating to UPSC Civil Services Examination 2021 results. The recurrence of such controversies highlights a broader concern within the coaching industry: the growing tendency to blur the distinction between full-time coaching students and candidates who merely attend short-term programs, workshops, or interview sessions.

When coaching institutes fought over a topper: The Sarvesh Mehtani controversy of 2017

One of the earliest high-profile examples of coaching institutes battling over academic success emerged in 2017 following the declaration of JEE Advanced results. As soon as Chandigarh student Sarvesh Mehtani secured All India Rank 1 in JEE Advanced 2017, a dispute broke out between two prominent coaching institutes over who deserved credit for his achievement.

The controversy escalated when Lakshya Institute approached the district court against Sri Chaitanya Educational Institute, alleging that the latter had attempted to portray Sarvesh’s success as its own despite the student having studied at Lakshya for several years. According to Lakshya, Sarvesh had been associated with the institute for nearly four years and had received the bulk of his preparation there before clearing one of the country’s most competitive entrance examinations.

The dispute became even more serious when Lakshya alleged that Sri Chaitanya had not only attempted to claim credit for the topper’s success but had also used the profiles of former Lakshya faculty members who had subsequently joined Sri Chaitanya. The institute further claimed that advertisements published by Sri Chaitanya incorporated Lakshya’s previous results, rankings, and achievements from earlier years, thereby creating the impression that these accomplishments were associated with the rival coaching brand.

What made the controversy significant was that it exposed a growing trend within the coaching industry: the transformation of student achievements into marketing commodities. Instead of celebrating the hard work and dedication of a successful student, coaching institutions became embroiled in a legal battle over commercial ownership of academic success. The fact that the dispute reached the courtroom demonstrated the enormous financial value attached to a topper’s name and rank.

The Sarvesh Mehtani controversy served as an early warning sign of what would later become a recurring phenomenon across Bharat’s coaching industry. Over the following years, similar disputes emerged involving NEET and JEE toppers, with multiple coaching centers simultaneously claiming the same students as their own.

Time to reform Bharat’s coaching industry

The recurring nature of these controversies demonstrates that the problem is not limited to a handful of institutions. It reflects deeper structural incentives that reward aggressive marketing over academic integrity. Unless stricter disclosure norms, independent audits of success claims, stronger consumer protections, and meaningful penalties are implemented, the cycle is likely to continue.

Education should empower students through knowledge, critical thinking, and genuine mentorship. It should not be reduced to a marketplace where rankings become commodities and student achievements become advertising tools.

The incidents documented between 2017 and 2026 paint a disturbing picture of an industry increasingly driven by commercial interests rather than educational values. From inflated selection figures and misleading advertisements to battles over toppers and regulatory penalties, the evidence points to a system where perception often matters more than performance. The Bihar controversy of 2026 is not an isolated episode- it is a warning sign. If Bharat’s education ecosystem is to retain public trust, coaching institutes must be held to the same standards of transparency, honesty, and accountability that society expects from every other sector influencing the future of its youth.