Examine the adequacy of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and its 2026 amendment in curbing examination malpractice in India.

Q. Examine the adequacy of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and its 2026 amendment in curbing examination malpractice in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Recurring paper leaks in centrally conducted tests — most visibly NEET-UG — pushed Parliament to enact India's first dedicated central anti-cheating law, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, and to tighten it through the 2026 Amendment Bill [1]. The framework is a strong deterrent on paper, but its adequacy rests on preventive and institutional reform it does not supply.

Where the framework is adequate - Wide coverage: the Act applies to UPSC, SSC, Railway Recruitment Boards, IBPS, NTA and central ministries' recruitment exams, ending reliance on scattered state laws [1]. - Stringent deterrence: the amendment allows imprisonment up to 10 years, fines up to ₹10 crore, and seizure of convicted offenders' property, mirroring economic-offence style penalties [2]. - Targeting the weak link: debarment of errant service providers is doubled from four to eight years, addressing repeat failures by private agencies contracted for exam conduct [1]. - Speed of justice: investigation must finish in two months; a central Special Task Force may investigate; states and UTs must set up Special Fast Track Courts with Special Public Prosecutors for day-to-day trial and time-bound appeals [1][2].

Where it falls short - Punitive, not preventive: it penalises leaks after they occur but does not mandate reform of question-paper security, transport or agency capacity — NEET 2026 still had to be cancelled and re-conducted. - Federal dependence: fast-track courts rest on state and UT action, so uneven capacity may dilute uniform enforcement [2]. - Enforcement bottlenecks: two-month deadlines assume investigative bandwidth that scattered leak networks, often digitally organised, may overwhelm. - Institutional gap: accountability of the conducting body itself, notably the NTA, lies outside the statute.

The 2024 Act and its 2026 amendment are therefore necessary but not sufficient — deterrence is now credible, delivery is not. Pairing them with reformed NTA processes, encrypted question-paper logistics and prompt state-level judicial infrastructure would convert legal intent into assured examination integrity, protecting the equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 16.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — scope of covered exam bodies, debarment raised 4→8 years, two-month investigation deadline, Special Task Force 2. PIB: Lok Sabha Passes Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 — penalties up to 10 years and ₹10 crore, property seizure, state/UT Special Fast Track Courts, Special Public Prosecutors, time-bound appeals