The recent declaration of the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2025 final results on 6 March has once again triggered a nationwide media frenzy over the “toppers’ journeys”. Social media erupts with motivational taglines, videos, and memes celebrating their success and struggles. Families and communities distribute sweets, treating the achievement as a collective social triumph rather than a personal one.
Toppers’ stories are portrayed with the grandeur of Olympic medal wins or major sporting accomplishments yet these successes, if truly achievements in a broader sense, remain deeply personal and have limited tangible social impact. Without delving into precise numbers, the 2025 results selected 948 candidates from a pool of roughly 10 lakh applicants. In a previous article in the Indian Express, I had examined how the civil services have become synonymous with prestige in India, often overshadowing other vital professions. Building on that critique, the 2025 results provide a fresh lens to examine the over-glorification of both the exam and the services it feeds into.
This is not to diminish the hard work of the selected candidates. Rather, it challenges the dominant societal narrative: UPSC toppers are frequently portrayed as demigods. Media profiles dissect their “strategies” from daily routines to book lists as if cracking the exam unlocks the secrets of life itself. This narrative ignores the significant role of randomness and privilege embedded in the process. Many toppers, such as those with medical or engineering backgrounds emerge from stable, privileged educational ecosystems. The exam inherently favours candidates with access to quality coaching, strong English proficiency, and the financial and temporal resources for multiple attempts.
For average aspirants from rural areas or economically weaker sections, the odds remain heavily stacked against them. The 2025 results tell the same familiar story, yet the relentless emphasis on “inspirational” narratives glosses over these systemic barriers. We celebrate the rare exceptions while millions of aspirants burn out in isolation, grappling with severe mental health crises. Reports from coaching hubs like Delhi’s Mukherjee Nagar consistently highlight alarming rates of depression and suicide. Yet the glorification machine rolls on unabated.
The examination structure itself perpetuates a built-in hierarchical system that undervalues true talent, efficiency, and domain expertise. A candidate who scores a mere fraction of a mark higher than others is elevated to a position of superiority that lasts for decades. This hierarchy often overrides humanity, knowledge, and practical skills: a person with minimal understanding of a domain can issue commands to those with far superior expertise. Even more troubling is the service allocation process, which largely disregards competency and relies instead on accidental performance in a single exam cycle.
This not only harms the lives of those who will be governed but also discourages genuine future governance talent. The 2025 batch will enter a system where debates on lateral entry and reforms continue, yet core issues such as accountability, innovation, and performance remain unaddressed. Over-glorification breeds unrealistic expectations: new recruits anticipate a hero’s welcomes, only to confront the daily grind of paperwork, political pressures, and frequent transfers. This mismatch fosters cynicism and inefficiency. The economic costs are equally stark.
Lakhs of young people devote their prime years to UPSC preparation, forgoing skill development in high-growth fields such as AI, sustainability, or entrepreneurship. India’s demographic dividend risks becoming a liability when talent is funneled into a single, hypercompetitive exam that selects barely 0.1 per cent of applicants. The 2025 results underscore this skew: many toppers hail from IITs or NLUs, diverting valuable technical and intellectual capital from innovation and the private sector into administration. Imagine the potential impact if that talent were channeled elsewhere. This year also saw several individuals falsely claiming to have cleared the exam and around 6–7 candidates publicly celebrating successes they never achieved.
These incidents highlight the immense public pressure and allure of UP SC glorification. A major structural flaw attracting widespread attention is the role of the District Magistrate, who consolidates enormous power with minimal accountability. A generalist with limited domain expertise or practical experience commands entire departments at the district level, often leading to inefficiencies and poor decision-making. This over-accumulation of power invites misuse, as accountability mechanisms remain weak. Ultimately, we must confront and reform this colonial era system, which has failed to adapt to contemporary realities.
It neither produces true domain experts nor effectively trains a modern workforce. One of the boldest moves this government has taken was Lateral Entry but due to systematic resistance of the bureaucracy and opposition of certain political groups, it could not translate into reality as it should have. The over emphasis on conservative bureaucracy often stops the growth of other systems. We need a more robust module which can take the place of the UPSC.
(The writer is director of the Center of Policy Research and Governance.)