Author: Shubhankar Mishra
Abstract
Malpractice in examinations has relentlessly afflicted India’s competitive recruitment and education testing systems, thereby undermining public confidence and the meritocratic ideal. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is an important Indian Parliament Act that criminalizes and regulates in detail a sequence of unfair practices associated with public examinations. This research paper examines the background, legislative features, operational mechanisms, and significant implications of the Act. It assesses the ability of the Act to restore integrity to the examination process, examines its deterrent features, and locates the loopholes and challenges. Inferences from case law, media reports, and government reports, the study concludes by drawing recommendations for enhancing enforcement powers and ensuring uniform application throughout the state.
Keywords:
Public examination, cheating, malpractice, impersonation, cybercrime, examination law, organized malpractice, NEET controversy, exam fraud, education integrity, Public Examinations Act 2024
1. Introduction
Public tests are milestones in shaping the academic and career paths of millions of Indian students every year. Tests like the highly reputed civil service examinations of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the national-level entrance tests like NEET and JEE are gateways to opportunities, social uplifts, and careers in public service. The validity of such tests has been doubted in recent years because of the prevalence of advanced and technologically equipped means of deception.
The recent spate of document leaks, impersonations, cyber cheating, collusion with exam controllers, and mass scale examination malpractice has become a point of concern. The Vyapam scam, the leak of the 2024 NEET-UG paper, and malpractice in state-level teacher eligibility tests have given these tests a bad reputation and have generated public outrage on a mass scale. Such malpractices deny merit candidates a fair ground and incite public suspicion of institutions that are bound to provide justice and moral practice.
India did not have a codified and consolidated legal system targeted towards the increasing threat of examination-related fraud until now. Offenses were generally initiated against under more general heads in the Indian Penal Code, including cheating, forgery, or criminal conspiracy; however, general legislation could not prove to be effective in tackling the nature, magnitude, or context of contemporary examination-related offenses. Application of legal provisions was thus not uniform, and the applied punishments often proved to be ineffective.
For this purpose, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, is an important piece of legislation. Enacted by Parliament and specifically published in June 2024, the Act is intended to create a comprehensive legal framework aimed specifically at preventing, punishing, and deterring unfair means in public examinations. The Act provides specifically for dealing with a wide range of offenses, severe punishments, and liability on the part of the service providers and examiners in charge of conducting examinations. Significantly, the Act recognizes the role of organized crime in examination-fraud, a change of attitude viewing such crimes as system-based and not random acts.
This research paper offers a critical evaluation of the provisions, implementation plan, and initial impacts of the Public Examinations Act, 2024. This analysis assesses the extent of the Act, defines its meaning of “unfair means,” identifies the allocation of responsibilities, and recognizes the action taken as a precautionary measure. It also critically analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the Act in preventing the rampant malpractice of examinations. Employing the perspective of legal critique, recent case studies, and policy analysis, this paper tries to assess the effectiveness of the Act in restoring the public examination system’s credibility in India and ensuring a fair deal to meritorious students.
2. Literature Review
A number of scholars and commentators on the law have discussed the problem of examination malpractices and the imperative of legislative reform:
P.N. Srivastava (2020) in “Examination Integrity and Legal Voids” highlighted the absence of a particular central legislation dealing with public exam cheating.
The Hindu (2024) and LiveLaw (2024) editorial articles place the NEET‑UG 2024 paper leak in perspective as a major driving force behind the Act’s accelerated passage.
Dr. Shreya Malhotra in Indian Journal of Education Law noted that the earlier schemes of regulation lacked criminal deterrence against cyber or corporate actors who involved themselves in leaks.
LegalServiceIndia.com (2024) provided a clause-by-clause analysis of the Act and stressed uniform state adoption for more extensive enforcement.
Bar and Bench and SCC Online have covered early enforcement, judicial remarks, and potential constitutional challenges to proportionality of punishment.
Existing literature, though abundant in both media and legal scholarship, falls short of intensive academic scrutiny integrating legal analysis and policy analysis—something the present paper aims to remedy.
There is a vast literature in media and legal scholarship, but there is a wide gap in regard to appropriate research that appropriately combines policy analysis and legal analysis. The aim of this essay is to fill this gap.
3. Research Methodology
The research utilizes a legal approach that entails principal and secondary sources.
Main References:
- The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (notification in official gazette).
- Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Rules, 2024
- Case law (e.g., Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court rulings)
- Statutory rates of FIRs and measures taken under the Act.
Secondhand Sources:
- Weekly news magazines, research reports, and legal magazines (The Hindu, LiveLaw, Hindustan Times)
- Ministry of Education releases and Government releases
- Examination board reports (e.g. NTA, UPSC)
- Penal theory and law reform of tests take into account how other countries, like the United Kingdom and Singapore, address their laws. In these countries, cheating on public tests is a criminal act.
4. Extent and Scope of the Act
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is the initial central act in India aimed at curbing unfair means in public examinations. The Act encompasses the majority of the public tests administered by organizations working under the auspices of the Central Government. Such organizations are institutions like the UPSC, SSC, RRBs, IBPS, NTA, and any other organizations as defined by the Central Government.
The Act covers a public examination as any exam that is taken for recruitment of individuals to work in government positions or to enter higher education. Notice that this is not necessarily going to encompass state-level exams unless state governments enact comparable legislation or adopt this Act as a template. This is a very critical distinction. There had been numerous issues in the past with state recruitment boards and local schools, and these problems may persist if the states do nothing.
The law establishes a uniform set of rules for maintaining exams equitable, employing the collaboration of states in implementing them evenly. This can result in varying degrees of protection and enforcement throughout the nation in the meantime.
5. Key Provisions of the 2024 Act
The Indian Parliament put into force a new act titled the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (Act No. 1 of 2024). The act came into force on 21 June 2024 with the aim of preventing cheating in national-level public examinations. Definition of Public Examinations and Unfair Means
Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 states public examinations as those conducted by government departments mentioned in its Schedule or notified by the central government. They are UPSC, SSC, Railway Recruitment Boards, NTA, IBPS, and other central government offices.
The legislation uses “unfair means” to connote any unauthorized access or release of question papers or answer keys. It further encompasses the seeking of illegal assistance during examinations, any alteration of computer systems or merit-list documents, impersonation, the conduct of spurious examinations, and the issuance of admit cards, offer letters, and rank certificates in a wrong manner.
Offences Covered: Impersonation, Leaks, Use of Devices
The law specifies the following key offences as part of its provisions:
- Someone acts as an impersonator when they substitute themselves for a candidate;
- The leakage of question papers or answer keys can occur through electronic or physical channels;
- Supporting candidates through unauthorized communication or collusion during exams is prohibited;
- The law punishes system hacking and certificate falsification and rank list forgery.
- Cheating with electronic devices— clear as a bell from the Act’s sweeping language.
Relevance to Individuals, Institutions, & Tech Providers
And, significantly, the Act holds not only the perpetrator accountable. It firmly holds accountable service providers — which can be either the computer system supplier or the technician attending to the examination.
In case of malpractice, if a service provider is found guilty, they can be fined up to ₹1 crore, debarred from conducting public examinations for a period of four years, and would have to pay for the damages incurred. If the misdeed is done with the consent of, or connived at the orders of the senior management (directors or officers) then they can be put behind the bars for 3‑10 years and pay a fine of ₹1 crore.
For organised-crime with more than one person or unit, the fine increases to ₹1 crore along with 5‑10 years’ imprisonment and attachment of or forfeiture of the property of an institution.
Overall, the Act is clearly designed with the intention to fill the historic gaps left by earlier legislations, and to fix the responsibility for all kinds of examination malpractices not only on the person concerned, but also on the larger entity— the educational institution, the examiner body, the technology service provider.
6. Punishment and Legal Process
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is aimed at enacting a holistic punitive regime which would deter and effectively counter examination malpractices in an inclusive and commanding way. The Act is a commitment to revive public faith in competitive examinations by enacting a holistic regime of tough penalties, increased procedural safeguard, and increased institutional accountability.
A. Sanctions on Juridical Persons and Individuals
1. Responsibility of Individuals
Section 10 lays down that any individual who is found to have participated, instigated, or facilitated the use of unethical methods in a public test will be punishable as shall be appropriate:
- A prison sentence of over three years but not more than five years, and
- A fine of up to ₹10 lakh.
In lieu of payment of the prescribed fine, the offender can be subjected to additional imprisonment, according to the provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, governing the default sentencing after the repeal of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Sanctions against Service Providers and Institutions
Organisations which give, distribute aid, or assist public testing—e.g., testing labs, service organisations, and technology companies—are subject to additional burdens. If found to be complicit, the following sanctions may be imposed:
A penalty of up to ₹1 crore.
Recovery of examination reconduct costs from the culpable entity.
Confiscation of illegal benefits, not exceeding ₹10 crore, from the criminal activity.
Debarment for four years from providing any service related to public examinations.
In addition, in cases where officers in charge or senior management are implicated either in authorizing or conspiring in the commission of the offense, they will be held personally accountable to:
Severe imprisonment for a period of three to ten years, and
A penalty of up to ₹1 crore.
B. Organized Crime and Increased Punishment
The Act creates a special category of offence for offences committed under organised crime syndicates—well-organised groups with more than two members, operating on a systematic, profit-based basis of examination fraud.
The penalty for such violation is:
A severe prison term of not less than five years, but perhaps up to a term of ten years, and
A minimum fine of ₹1 crore.
Furthermore, the court of adjudication has the power to:
Order of attachment or loss of the syndicate or any party engaged with the government, and
Direct recovery of cost of investigation and litigation from the criminals or parties.
C. Classification of Offences and Legal Severity
Section 9 of the act defines every offense as follows:
Cognizable: Permitting police powers of arrest without a warrant
Non-bailable: Bail is not a right but is provided on the judge’s mercy;
Non-compoundable: The parties cannot privately settle or withdraw charges, and there must be a complete judicial process.
This classification evidently shows the gravity of these crimes and declares the state’s resolve to proceed with legal action against them with the greatest seriousness.
D. Accelerating Inquiry and Resolution To ensure efficiency and procedural standards, the legislation mandates that investigations be carried out by only officers holding the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) or Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).
The authority of the Central Government to refer particularly sensitive cases to specialized agencies, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or other central agencies as may be designated.
The Fast-Track Court system for the trial of offenses under the Act seeks to remove the procedural obstacles and the expeditious disposal of cases.
The use of intensive investigative techniques in combination with particular judicial courts is the optimum demonstration of the aims of the Act to provide prompt redress and effective deterrence, but avoid abuse of procedural loopholes.
7. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Act
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is a progressive and holistic step towards the increasing threat of examination misconduct in India. While the holistic nature of this policy is commendable, it is needed to critically analyze a few legal, operational, and constitutional shortcomings.
A. Benefits
1. Comprehensive Recognition of Modern Malpractices The law is progressive in dealing with technology in that it defines and forbids a wide range of unethical practices, including internet impersonation, unauthorized computer system access, remote cheating, and meddling with examination infrastructure—thus the dynamic nature of examination-related crimes in the computer era.
2. Corporate and Management Liability
Of special note in the Act is the criminalization of the liability of service providers-including examination agencies, information technology sellers, and also outsourcing companies-and their senior management, if found complicit or negligent. This is a move from personal to organizational responsibility, a situation which fits the philosophy of company criminal law.
3. Non-bailable, Cognizable, and High-Penalty Regime
The definition of some offenses as non-compoundable, non-bailable, and cognizable and the imposition of heavy imprisonment and substantial monetary fines are indicative of the legislative policy to lay strong emphasis on deterrence and to consider these offenses as serious threats to public order and the integrity of administration.
4. Focus on Organized Crime Syndicates
The law specifically focuses on organized crime syndicates that engage in massive data hacks and scams by means of well-organized racketeering activities. By increasing penalties for these organizations and permitting the seizure of assets alongside the recuperation of illicit gains, the law aligns itself with the frameworks established for combating mafia-related activities and terrorist financing in various other regions.
B. Limitations
1. Exclusion of candidate criminal liability
Significantly, the Act does not make the conduct of the examinee criminal, even where candidates do so with knowledge, i.e., with intent. While it protects aspirants from the oppressive use of criminal prosecution, it serves to water down individual responsibility and deterrence. The burden thus remains with exam-conducting authorities to impose severe administrative penalties, which may not always be effective or consistent.
2. Discrepancies in Interagency Coordination
As a fundamental law that can be used to challenge Union agency tests, the success of the Act relies on the implementation or harmonisation by the states for tests under the states’ jurisdictions. Most states have not implemented similar legislation to date, and thus enforcement varies around India.
3. Risk of Disproportionate Punitive Sanctions
The uniform penal code scheme of the Act does not permit graded punishment depending on the seriousness of the offence so that less serious, first-time, or juvenile offenders can be dealt with indiscriminately. It may result in potential breaches of the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21, which deal with equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty, including protection against arbitrary punishment.4. Uncertainty regarding the Mechanism of Oversight
The proposed National Technical Committee, with its foremost responsibilities of implementation, technological development, and monitoring, has no known organizational structure, functional mandate, and operational schedule. Without legal mandate and obligatory transparency mechanisms, the accountability and overall performance of the committee are not specified.
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is a landmark piece of legislation in India to protect the integrity of public recruitment and examination test procedures. The Act reflects an uncompromising institutional commitment to end examination malpractices that had earlier undermined public faith, derailed merit-based processes, and compromised the integrity of government institutions.
In targeting inherent systemic weaknesses, such as cyber intrusion, corporate conspiracy, and criminal syndicate networks, the Act is a progressive move in administrative and criminal law. Yet, the significance of the legislation necessitates the complement of ethical enforcement, procedural justice, and institutional reform.
Recommendations
1. Candidate Responsibility through Administrative Action
Although the rationale behind exempting the candidates from criminal prosecution is rehabilitative in nature, it is essential that the authorities impose uniform administrative penalties—like disqualification, cancellation of candidacy, and prohibition of future examinations—to serve as a deterrence for future candidates.
2. Federal Alignment and State Adoption
The Union Government has to encourage cooperative federalism by encouraging states to implement the Act mutatis mutandis or frame concurrent legislation, thus ensuring uniform legal standards in connection with examinations in the country.
3. Judicial Oversight and Sentencing Guidelines
A poorly defined scheme of penalty sanctions will have to be determined by legislative amendments or by judicial decisions, e.g., intent, recidivism, and lesser offense differentials, in a manner that will provide proportionality and respect for due process at sentencing.
4. Operationalisation of the National Technical Committee
The National Technical Committee must be set up in good time with clearly laid-down functions, membership, reporting requirement, and legislative backing. It must comprise experts in the fields of law enforcement, cybersecurity, education administration, and judicial services, and be endowed with powers to formulate obligatory technological and procedural standards.
5. Capacity Building and Awareness
A countrywide program should be launched to train police officials, examination officials, judicial officials, and digital service providers on how to deal with examination fraud. Public campaigns can also dampen demand for illegal services and remind stakeholders of the legal implications involved.
Closing Reflection
In a country where over 30 million citizens take competitive examinations every year, sanctity of public testing goes beyond good governance; it is a constitutional imperative written into Articles 14 and 16, ensuring equal opportunity and avoiding discrimination. The 2024 Act is a good beginning; but the full potential can be delivered only by prudent implementation, intergovernmental cooperation, and continuous reform. The act has to be able to keep up with the challenges it seeks to overcome through reform.
