Photo: Shantanu Kumar / Pexels
Sarthak Sidhant: The Teen Who Took On CBSE and Became X's New 'Chad'
When a board exam goes wrong, the usual script is a tearful parent, a re-evaluation form, and a court case nobody reads about. The CBSE OSM row flipped that script. Its breakout star is Sarthak Sidhant, a 17-year-old Class 12 student from Ranchi, Jharkhand, who didn't just complain about his marks — he audited the system that produced them, took his evidence to Parliament, and then turned the whole episode into a masterclass in how to win an argument on the internet. Along the way he has become, in the language of X (formerly Twitter), the platform's newest 'chad'.
The story matters beyond one boy's marksheet. It is a rare case of a teenager using public-records research, not outrage, to question how a high-stakes national exam is actually graded — and being taken seriously enough to be called before lawmakers.
What the CBSE OSM row is actually about
CBSE has been moving its evaluation to On-Screen Marking (OSM), where answer scripts are scanned and graded digitally instead of on paper. The promise is speed, transparency and fewer human errors. The contract to run the software went to a Hyderabad-based firm, Coempt EduTeck.
Sidhant's central claim is not that digital marking is bad. It is that the tender to choose the vendor looks tilted. He alleges that eligibility and technical conditions were quietly changed across successive versions of the request-for-proposal (RFP) in ways that narrowed the field.
According to his published analysis, clauses around past poor performance, blacklisting, financial qualification limits, CMMI maturity levels and project-eligibility criteria shifted between the old and new RFPs. In one example he highlights, an older clause disqualifying firms for poor performance or blacklisting was allegedly softened to bar only those currently blacklisted — a small wording change with a big gatekeeping effect.
How a 17-year-old built the case
What makes Sidhant stand out is method. He didn't lead with feelings; he led with documents. He compiled the tender comparisons into a detailed write-up on his own website and laid out the timeline so readers could follow the alleged before-and-after themselves.
He has also been candid that this was not a solo act. Sidhant has credited a small group of young researchers and journalists for the digging. Media reports describe him working alongside Nisarg Adhikari, an ethical hacker who first pointed him toward Coempt, and others such as Vedant Shrivastava, who together poked holes in claims about evaluation accuracy, digital security and procurement.
- He named names, not vibes — citing specific clauses and tender versions.
- He showed his work publicly so others could check it.
- He shared credit with collaborators and reporters instead of hogging the spotlight.
- He went on the record to cameras rather than hiding behind anonymity.
That last point is unusual for a viral young account. Most online crusades stay safely anonymous. Sidhant put his face and name to the claims.
The parliamentary panel moment
The research earned him a seat most adults never get. Sidhant appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports, chaired by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh, and submitted a roughly seven-page document of his findings.
For a school student to brief a parliamentary committee on procurement integrity is striking. It moved the story out of the comments section and into the formal machinery of accountability. His framing has stayed measured — he has repeatedly said he simply hopes CBSE will answer his questions, rather than declaring guilt.
It is important to be fair here: these remain allegations under examination. CBSE awarding a contract to Coempt EduTeck is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing, and the firm and the board are entitled to respond to the specific points raised. What Sidhant has done is force those questions onto the table.
'Savage replies' and the birth of a 'chad'
The second half of this story is pure internet. As Sidhant's threads spread, so did the trolls — and his comebacks became the show. Reports describe his sharp one-liners and witty replies to critics going viral, with users praising the poise of someone barely out of school dismantling adult hecklers without losing his cool.
That is what earned the 'chad' label. On X, 'chad' has drifted from its older meme origins to mean someone who is unapologetically confident, competent and unbothered — the opposite of defensive. A teenager calmly out-arguing detractors with receipts fits the bill perfectly.
There was also a notable shoutout to a journalist: rather than claiming all the glory, Sidhant has publicly thanked the reporters who chased the story, a generosity that further endeared him to onlookers tired of self-promoting influencers.
The political class noticed too. Reports say Congress leader Rahul Gandhi met Sidhant and praised his efforts publicly. That kind of attention is a double-edged sword — it amplifies the cause but also risks turning a documentation exercise into a partisan football, something Sidhant himself appears keen to avoid.
Why this resonates with students and parents
Strip away the memes and you find a very real anxiety. Lakhs of families stake a child's future on board results, and the shift to digital evaluation has been largely opaque to the people most affected. When a peer — not a politician, not a bureaucrat — explains the plumbing of how scripts get marked and contracts get awarded, it lands differently.
There is also a generational signal here. This is a cohort that grew up with RTI-style transparency tools, open data, and the assumption that documents can and should be checked. Sidhant's appeal is that he behaves like a citizen-auditor by instinct, not a victim.
The 'chad' framing risks flattening that into entertainment. The more durable takeaway is that careful, sourced, public-facing scrutiny can move institutions — even when it comes from someone who can't yet vote.
What comes next
Several threads will decide whether this is a viral moment or a lasting one:
- CBSE's response — whether the board addresses the specific tender clauses Sidhant flagged, point by point.
- The committee's findings — whether the parliamentary panel pursues the procurement questions or lets them fade.
- Coempt EduTeck's side — the firm's explanation of the eligibility and performance criteria.
- Evaluation reform — whether the OSM rollout gets independent technical and security review.
For now, Sarthak Sidhant has done something quietly radical: he made tender clauses go viral and turned dry procurement language into must-read content. Whether or not every allegation holds up under scrutiny, he has shown a generation of students that the most powerful reply to a flawed system isn't a rant — it's a footnote, neatly sourced, delivered with a smile.
