Discuss the Centre-State coordination challenges in implementing time-bound investigation and Fast Track Courts under special criminal legislations, with reference to the Public Examinations Amendment Bill, 2026.

Q. Discuss the Centre-State coordination challenges in implementing time-bound investigation and Fast Track Courts under special criminal legislations, with reference to the Public Examinations Amendment Bill, 2026. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Special criminal laws are enacted by Parliament, but enforced by States, since "police" and "public order" are State subjects (List II) while criminal law and procedure are Concurrent. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, passed by Lok Sabha on 29 July 2026 [1], mandates investigation within two months, trial within three months of chargesheet, and designation of Special Fast Track Courts by every State/UT [2] — making its success dependent on Centre-State convergence.

Institutional and jurisdictional friction - The Bill empowers the Centre to constitute a Special Task Force [2], while ground-level policing, seizure and arrest remain with State police — risking overlap and turf disputes seen in earlier central-agency models. - Designation of a Court of Session as Special Fast Track Court requires State consultation with High Courts; States may plead pendency and judge shortage.

Fiscal and capacity constraints - Fast Track Courts, Special Public Prosecutors [2] and forensic support impose recurring costs largely borne by States, replicating the funding disputes of earlier FTC schemes. - Two-month investigation deadlines strain thinly-staffed police and prosecution wings; the Bill prescribes no consequence for missing the deadline [2], weakening enforceability.

Political and federal sensitivities - Exam malpractice is politically charged; States may prioritise their own anti-paper-leak laws over the central framework, creating uneven enforcement. - Extraterritorial syndicates operating across State borders demand inter-State police cooperation that presently rests on ad hoc arrangements.

Convergent strengths - Both levels share the goal of protecting students and merit-based recruitment under Articles 14 and 16, giving a strong cooperative basis [1]. - Time-bound appeals and stiffer penalties — up to ten years and ₹50 lakh fine [1] — provide a uniform deterrent standard States can build on.

Effective implementation therefore rests less on penal severity than on cooperative federalism. A model State scheme with assured central funding, a standing Centre-State standing committee on exam integrity, and periodic Inter-State Council review — as recommended by the Punchhi Commission for concurrent enforcement — can convert statutory timelines into real deterrence, securing equality of opportunity in public employment.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Lok Sabha Passes Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 — PIB — passage on 29 July 2026 by voice vote; enhanced penalties (5–10 years, ₹50 lakh); objective of safeguarding students and youth 2. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — two-month investigation and three-month trial timelines, Special Fast Track Courts and Special Public Prosecutors, Special Task Force, absence of consequence for missed deadlines