Evaluate whether the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is enough to restore the credibility of high-stakes national examinations, given the questions raised about NTA's functioning.

People trust a high-stakes examination when two things hold: cheats are deterred, and papers are not leaked in the first place. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 came into force on 21 June 2024 [3]. It deals firmly with the first. It does only part of the second. The Act is therefore necessary, but it is not enough.

How the Act strengthens credibility

• Wide coverage: it applies to UPSC, SSC, Railway Recruitment Boards, IBPS and the NTA's NEET, JEE and CUET [1].
• Strong deterrence: 3–5 years' jail for unfair means. For organised malpractice, 5–10 years' jail and a minimum fine of ₹1 crore [1].
• Protects honest candidates: examinees are kept outside its penal provisions [2]. The target is the leak network, not students.
• Works alongside State laws, such as Uttar Pradesh's 2024 Act [8].

Why it falls short

• Punishes, but does not prevent: penalties apply only after a paper has been compromised. Even with the Act in force, the CBI registered a paper-leak case in NEET-UG 2026 [5], and a re-examination had to be held [6].
• Concentration risk at NTA: one agency conducts NEET, JEE and CUET [1], so one breach hits lakhs of candidates. The Radhakrishnan Committee (June 2024) was asked to reform the examination process, data security and NTA's structure [4]. A criminal law cannot do these jobs.
• Reform still unfinished: a High Powered Steering Committee is still monitoring whether the NTA recommendations are being implemented [6].
• The law is still being strengthened: the 2026 Amendment Bill adds harsher punishment, special task forces and fast-track courts [7]. This implicitly admits that the 2024 framework was not enough.

What else is needed

• Leak-resistant exam design: secure digital transfer of question papers, audited exam centres and vetted service providers.
• A professional NTA: permanent expert staff, independent security audits, and a yearly public report on progress against the Radhakrishnan recommendations.
• Credible enforcement: quick investigation and fast-track trials, so that the threat of punishment is real.
• Centre–State coordination: exam centres and policing depend on State machinery.

Verdict: The 2024 Act gives the State strong legal tools. But credibility comes back when exams stop leaking, not only when leaks are punished. The law must be combined with NTA restructuring, strong data security and open follow-up on the Committee's recommendations. That is how the State can keep the constitutional promise of equal opportunity (Articles 14 and 16) and win back the trust of millions of aspirants.