South Korea tightens rules as AI enters exam cheating, Is India ready for next challenge?

South Korea is tightening examination security ahead of its 2027 College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT), with candidates caught wearing artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled smart glasses facing cancellation of their exams and a one-year suspension from taking the test again.

The development also raises questions about how India prevents technology-assisted cheating in high-stakes entrance and recruitment examinations.

The Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE) issued the updated instructions for CSAT candidates on Oct 15, setting out strict rules on wireless devices and procedures for checking suspected smart glasses. The examination is scheduled for Nov 19.

Under the revised instructions, candidates cannot bring wireless devices, including smart glasses and smartwatches, into examination halls. Anyone found wearing prohibited devices during the test could have their examination invalidated and lose eligibility to take the following year's CSAT.

The restrictions also cover candidates who bring smart glasses into the examination room or possess them during the test. The rules treat such violations as serious cheating under Article 19 of the CSAT Management Regulations, a directive issued by South Korea's Ministry of Education.

The stricter measures follow reports of students using AI-enabled eyewear during university entrance examinations. The incidents have raised concerns that devices resembling ordinary glasses could allow candidates to access unauthorized assistance without being detected during routine checks.

Smart glasses cheating cases prompt tighter examination checks

Two recent incidents at South Korean universities have intensified concerns about the use of AI-enabled eyewear in competitive examinations.

On Oct 10, a student was caught wearing smart glasses during an entrance examination at Yonsei University. Reports indicated that examination supervisors had checked candidates before the test, but the student subsequently changed glasses and avoided detection until later.

A similar incident occurred on Oct 3 during an essay-based entrance examination at the University of Seoul. The university removed the student from the examination room and barred the candidate from taking its entrance examination for three years.

The cases have exposed the difficulty of identifying smart glasses through visual inspection alone. Some devices resemble conventional eyewear, making it challenging for supervisors to distinguish prohibited technology from ordinary glasses.

Under the updated CSAT instructions, examination supervisors can ask candidates to remove their glasses and place them on their desks for inspection. Candidates are expected to cooperate with these checks.

KICE has also warned that refusing to follow procedures for verifying whether smart glasses are being worn could lead to disciplinary action for serious misconduct after review.

The institute said, “Proctors may request observation and verification of smart glasses by utilizing the examinee’s identity, checking permissible watches, and the exam time; examinees must be aware that failure to comply will be considered misconduct.”

It also stated, “If a proctor requests verification, examinees must remove their glasses, place them on the desk, and cooperate with the proctor’s verification and inspection.”

South Korea plans training for examination supervisors

South Korea's Ministry of Education plans to distribute updated guidelines and training videos to help examination supervisors identify smart glasses and distinguish them from conventional eyewear.

The training is expected to cover inspection procedures and behaviors that could indicate the use of prohibited devices. The ministry intends to strengthen supervisors' ability to identify suspected cheating before and during the examination.

However, the proposed checks have raised concerns about the additional responsibilities being placed on teachers who serve as examination supervisors.

Visual inspection may not be sufficient to identify every AI-enabled device. Although radio-frequency detectors could help detect certain wireless devices, officials have indicated that introducing them for the upcoming examination may be difficult.

During a parliamentary audit on Oct 7, Education Minister Choi Kyo-jin said differences in examination environments could lead to detection errors, complicating the immediate deployment of such technology.

This leaves supervisors relying largely on visual checks, their judgment and the revised inspection procedures to identify possible violations.

Teachers have warned that the additional responsibilities could create disputes with candidates, delay examination procedures and distract supervisors from monitoring the wider examination hall.

A nationwide petition campaign launched by the Secondary School Teachers' Union called for additional personnel and adequate time to conduct checks for AI-enabled devices. The union also sought clearer procedures for handling suspicious cases and determining responsibility when disputes arise.

The National Union of Secondary Teachers separately launched a nationwide petition calling for better working conditions for CSAT supervisors and greater government accountability for examination security.

The union demanded additional staff to assist with inspections, clear instructions for dealing with suspected cheating and procedures for resolving disputes. It plans to submit the petition results to the education ministry, KICE and regional education offices.

How India handles cheating in competitive examinations

India also restricts the use of unauthorized electronic devices in major entrance and recruitment examinations. However, the rules and penalties vary by examination, conducting authority and the nature of the violation.

Examinations such as the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Undergraduate courses (NEET-UG) and the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Main have instructions prohibiting electronic and communication devices that could facilitate unfair means.

Candidates are generally required to follow examination-specific rules on prohibited items, identity verification and security checks. Violations can lead to cancellation of candidature, disqualification or debarment, depending on the applicable examination rules and the circumstances.

India's approach also includes a national legal framework targeting malpractice in public examinations. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, was introduced to address unfair means and organized activities that undermine the integrity of specified public examinations.

The law covers examinations conducted by designated public examination authorities, including bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) and National Testing Agency (NTA).

It addresses forms of malpractice such as question paper leaks, unauthorized assistance, tampering with examination systems and organized efforts to manipulate results. It also establishes penalties for offenses covered by the legislation.

The law is not, however, a single set of examination-room instructions for every candidate. Individual candidates remain subject to the relevant examination authority's rules, including provisions governing prohibited devices, unfair means, cancellation and debarment.

This distinction matters when comparing India's system with South Korea's specific restrictions on smart glasses. South Korea's latest CSAT instructions explicitly address the possession and wearing of these devices, while India's restrictions must be assessed through the rules applicable to each examination.

Can India's examination system address AI-enabled cheating?

AI-enabled eyewear presents a challenge beyond conventional mobile phones or smartwatches because some devices can look like ordinary glasses.

Depending on their capabilities, they may allow users to receive information or interact with connected technology without visibly handling a phone.

For Indian examination authorities, the issue raises questions about whether existing prohibited-device policies and security procedures are sufficient to address newer forms of wearable technology.

Physical frisking, identity verification and restrictions on electronic devices remain important parts of examination security.

However, devices that are difficult to identify visually may require more detailed instructions for supervisors and clear procedures for checking suspicious items.

South Korea's approach offers one example of an examination authority explicitly identifying smart glasses in its candidate instructions and defining consequences for noncompliance.

India's examination authorities could assess whether similar device-specific guidance would improve clarity for candidates and supervisors.

Any additional inspection requirements would also need to account for practical concerns. Supervisors must be able to investigate reasonable suspicions without unnecessarily disrupting the examination or subjecting candidates to inconsistent checks.

Clear procedures would be particularly important where ordinary prescription glasses could be mistaken for prohibited technology. Examination authorities would need to specify when checks can be requested, how inspections should be conducted and how disputes should be resolved.

Teacher representatives in South Korea have argued that training alone will not be enough without additional staff, adequate time and clear accountability. Similar operational considerations would be relevant if Indian authorities introduce more extensive checks for AI-enabled eyewear.

Examination security faces new technological challenges

South Korea's revised CSAT rules reflect growing concern about how emerging technologies could be used to gain unauthorized assistance during high-stakes examinations. The measures combine strict penalties for prohibited devices with expanded inspection procedures and supervisor training.

India already has examination-specific restrictions on electronic devices and a legal framework addressing unfair means in designated public examinations. The challenge is ensuring that these safeguards remain effective as new technologies become smaller and harder to detect.

The South Korean cases also underline the importance of balancing enforcement with practical implementation. Stronger rules may clarify what constitutes misconduct, but effective detection depends on workable inspection procedures, trained supervisors and consistent enforcement.

For India, the key question is whether existing examination instructions adequately address AI-enabled wearables and whether authorities need more explicit guidance on identifying and inspecting such devices.

Any comparison with South Korea must account for differences in examination regulations and enforcement systems.

As AI-enabled devices become more sophisticated, examination authorities in both countries face the task of protecting fairness without creating avoidable disruption for candidates or placing unmanageable demands on supervisors.