Does the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 adequately address the integrity crisis in State-level recruitment? Discuss the need for harmonised State legislation.

India's first central anti-paper-leak law was enacted on 12 February 2024, came into force on 21 June 2024 and is administered by the DoPT [2]. Jharkhand's August 2026 cancellation of the JSSC-CGL and 21 other exams, which the High Court quashed on 6 November 2026 [1], shows that the Act deals with State-level recruitment only partly.

Where the Act delivers

• Wide definition of unfair means, from paper leaks to fake exams. Offences are cognisable and non-bailable, and organised crime carries 5–10 years in prison [3].
• The 2026 Amendment, passed by Parliament in July 2026, raises penalties. It also creates a Special Task Force and requires Special Fast Track Courts in every State and UT [4].
• Parliament framed the Bill as a model for States [3].

Where it falls short

• Limited scope: its Schedule covers only central bodies such as UPSC, SSC, RRBs, NTA and IBPS [3]. State commissions like JSSC are outside it.
• A patchwork of State laws: UP, Odisha and Arunachal have passed separate Acts [5][6][7]. UP's Act excludes exams already covered by the central law [5]. As a result, the same offence can be treated differently from State to State.
• It only punishes: it does not say when a whole exam may be cancelled, and it gives honest candidates no remedy. Jharkhand cancelled on the basis of a CID report and protests. The HC found no concrete evidence of systemic taint and ordered reinstatement with continuous service [1].
• Little on prevention: safeguards like data security and standard procedures are left to the exam bodies themselves [8].

Why harmonised State laws are needed

• Even deterrence: leak gangs should not be able to shift to States with weak laws.
• Full coverage: Arunachal lists its covered bodies in a Schedule [7]. Such a list must include Staff Selection Commissions, not just PSCs.
• A proportionality clause: full cancellation should be allowed only after an inquiry finds that the guilty cannot be separated out [1].
• Candidate rights: a time-bound re-test and grievance redress.
• Common prevention standards: follow the Radhakrishnan Committee's focus on secure, standardised exam processes [8].

The central Act sets strong punishments, but the integrity crisis in State recruitment needs a broader framework. "Services under the State" is a State List subject (Entry 41). So the Centre and States should agree on model State laws through cooperative federalism, combining deterrence, prevention and fairness. That would protect the Articles 14 and 16 promise of equal opportunity in public employment.