Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill 2026

Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill 2026 Latest News

• The Parliament has passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the aftermath of the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, widespread student protests, and growing concerns over the credibility of competitive examinations. 
• The Bill amends the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, introducing stricter penalties, time-bound investigations, and special fast-track courts to curb examination malpractices.

Background – Evolution of the Legislative Response

• The issue gained national attention after the NEET-UG 2024 paper leak, with alleged leak networks operating in Patna (Bihar) and Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).
• The controversy intensified after 67 candidates secured full marks, aided by disputed grace marks, triggering nationwide protests and judicial scrutiny.
• Investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and monitoring by the Supreme Court exposed organised cheating syndicates.
• In response, Parliament enacted the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.
• However, the cancellation of NEET-UG 2026, affecting nearly 22 lakh aspirants, highlighted shortcomings in the existing legal framework and prompted the introduction of the Amendment Bill.

‹ ›

The Amendment Bill

• Key objectives:
  • Strengthen deterrence against organised examination fraud.
  • Ensure time-bound investigation and adjudication of offences.
  • Improve institutional accountability.
  • Protect the integrity, transparency and merit-based nature of public examinations.
• Major provisions:
  • Time-bound investigation and trial:
    • Investigation by police, central agencies or Special Task Forces must be completed within 60 days.
    • Trials in designated special fast-track courts must conclude within three months of filing the chargesheet.
    • Appeals before the High Courts are to be heard by a two-judge Division Bench and disposed of within three months.
  • Enhanced punishments: The Bill substantially increases penalties under the 2024 Act.
    • For general offences (Section 10(1)): Imprisonment increased from 3–5 years to 5–10 years. Maximum fine increased from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh.
    • For service providers: Maximum fine raised from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore. The debarment period extended from 4 years to 8 years.
    • For directors and senior management: Minimum fine increased from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore. Imprisonment increased from 3–10 years to 5–10 years.
    • For organised crime networks (Section 11): Minimum imprisonment enhanced from 5 years to 7 years. Maximum fine increased from ₹1 crore to ₹10 crore. 
• Measures to reduce procedural delays: The Bill introduces procedural reforms to accelerate justice –
  • Courts cannot grant adjournments beyond the following day except for recorded exceptional reasons.
  • All pending cases under the 2024 Act will be transferred to special fast-track courts.
  • States and Union Territories must appoint special public prosecutors exclusively for these cases.

Concerns and Limitations

• Lack of accountability for delayed investigations: 
  • According to PRS Legislative Research, the Bill prescribes a 60-day investigation timeline but does not specify –
    • Consequences for missing the deadline,
    • Accountability of investigating officers, or
    • Mandatory recording of reasons for delay.
  • This contrasts with legislations such as the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013; and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which contain stronger accountability provisions.
• Possible conflict with judicial precedent:
  • The Supreme Court (2002) held that – 
    • Prescribing rigid time limits for criminal proceedings is generally neither feasible nor judicially permissible, and
    • Criminal trials should not automatically terminate merely because prescribed timelines are exceeded.
  • Thus, mandatory timelines under the Bill may face judicial scrutiny.
• Capacity constraints of fast-track courts:
  • Merely prescribing timelines may not ensure speedy justice because fast-track courts already face heavy pendency. 
  • For example, 
    • Pending cases increased from over 2.02 lakh (2023) to 2.45 lakh (2025).
    • Disposal rates vary significantly across States (Andhra Pradesh – ~257 days; and Delhi – ~1,717 days in POCSO fast-track courts).
    • This reflects uneven judicial capacity and infrastructure.

Expert Views

• Systemic challenges identified by the Law Commission: Persistent bottlenecks delaying criminal trials include – 
  • Non-production or absence of accused persons.
  • Failure to apprehend absconding offenders.
  • Frequent and unnecessary adjournments.
  • Non-attendance of official witnesses.
  • Weak judicial case management.
  • Inadequate judicial manpower and court infrastructure.
• Performance of the 2024 Act:
  • Despite introducing a legal framework against examination malpractices, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 failed to secure a single conviction during its two years of operation.
  • This underscores deficiencies in enforcement and prosecution.
• Significance of Amendment Bill for Governance:
  • Reinforces integrity of public recruitment and entrance examinations.
  • Seeks to restore public confidence in merit-based selection.
  • Reflects a shift from merely criminalising examination fraud to strengthening investigation, prosecution, and judicial processes.
  • Success will depend not only on stricter penalties but also on institutional capacity, investigative accountability, judicial infrastructure, and effective implementation.

Source: TH