Discuss the adequacy of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 in curbing exam malpractices. How does the 2026 Amendment Bill seek to address its enforcement gaps?

Q. Discuss the adequacy of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 in curbing exam malpractices. How does the 2026 Amendment Bill seek to address its enforcement gaps? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

India's first central law against exam cheating, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, criminalised paper leaks in exams of the UPSC, SSC, RRB, NTA and IBPS [1]. Its design was sound, but recurring irregularities up to NEET-UG 2026 exposed weak enforcement rather than weak intent.

Where the 2024 Act was adequate - Legal clarity: codified a wide set of offences — question paper leakage, answer-key theft, tampering with computer resources, fake examinations [1]. - Deterrent classification: all offences made cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, probed by an officer not below DSP/ACP rank [1]. - Organised crime tier: 5–10 years' imprisonment with a minimum ₹1 crore fine, distinguishing rackets from individual cheats [1]. - Institutional liability: service providers penalised up to ₹1 crore with four-year debarment, shifting responsibility onto exam-conducting agencies [1].

Enforcement gaps that persisted - No time limit on investigation, allowing cases to drift and evidence trails in digital leaks to go cold. - No dedicated trial machinery — cases queued in ordinary courts, so conviction lagged far behind the exam cycle, blunting deterrence. - Penalties modest against the profits of leak networks; individual fines capped at ₹10 lakh [1]. - Capacity dependence on ordinary state police, without a specialised investigative or prosecutorial arm.

How the 2026 Amendment Bill responds - Two-month deadline for completing investigation from recording of information [2]. - Special Fast Track Courts (designated Sessions Courts) in every State/UT, day-to-day trial, concluded within three months of chargesheet; appeals before a two-judge High Court Bench within three months [2]. - Special Public Prosecutors for each such court, plus a Special Task Force for investigation [2]. - Steeper penalties: 5–10 years' jail and fines up to ₹50 lakh individually, up to ₹10 crore with attachment of assets for organised crime; service-provider debarment doubled to eight years [2][4].

Introduced by Dr. Jitendra Singh and passed by the Lok Sabha [3][4], the amendment converts a strong statute into an enforceable one by attaching timelines to every stage. Sustained credibility, however, will also require reformed examination conduct and technology-secured question-paper logistics — so that constitutional equality of opportunity under Article 16 is protected in practice, not merely on paper.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 — PRS Legislative Research — covered authorities, offences, cognisable/non-bailable status, DSP-rank investigation, penalties and service-provider debarment 2. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — two-month investigation deadline, Special Fast Track Courts, trial and appeal timelines, Special Public Prosecutors, Special Task Force, enhanced penalties and eight-year debarment 3. Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh Introduces the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha — PIB — introduction of the Bill and its stated objectives 4. LS passes Anti-Paper Leak Bill proposing tougher penalties to curb exam malpractices — NewsOnAir (Prasar Bharati) — Lok Sabha passage, ₹10 crore fine and asset seizure for organised offences