Strengthening Examination Integrity: Examining The Public Examinations (Prevention Of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026

Policy Update
Rishika Soni

Background

Public examinations determine more than the test of academic capability. For millions of students, examinations determine access to higher education, government employment, and social mobility. Any kind of unfair practices in the public examination process therefore affects not only individual candidates but also public confidence in the state’s mechanism.

India’s response to this challenge has increasingly emphasized criminal regulations. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, came into force on 21st June 2024 and was enacted as India’s first dedicated central legal framework aimed at preventing unfair means specified public examination. These include examination-conducting bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), and the National Testing Agency (NTA), as recognized under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department, 2024).

The 2024 Act was introduced against the backdrop of recurring irregularities in public examinations. However, the problem predates the legislation. For instance, in 2003, the leak of the Common Admission Test (CAT) question paper led to the cancellation and subsequent reconduct of the examination, affecting approximately 1.27 lakh candidates (Press Trust of India [PTI], 2003). More recently, controversies surrounding UGC-NET and NEET-UG 2024 renewed concerns about institutional accountability and exam security. The Ministry of Education cancelled the UGC-NET 2024 examination after receiving inputs indicating that its integrity may have been compromised and referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (Ministry of Education, 2024a).

However, the continuing concerns around examination malpractices have raised the question of whether existing punishments alone are sufficient. Against this backdrop, on 27 July 2026, Dr. Jitendra Singh, Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, in Lok Sabha. The Lok Sabha subsequently passed the bill on 29 July, followed by Rajya Sabha on 30 July 2026 (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 2026c, 2026d). The bill subsequently received the President’s assent and became the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026 (Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, 2026).

Functioning

The 2026 Amendment Act strengthens the framework of the 2024 Act with five major changes.

1. Higher penalties for examination malpractice: The amendment increased penalties for different stakeholders involved in the offense. For individuals resorting to unfair means, imprisonment has increased from three to five years to five to ten years. While the maximum fine has increased from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh.

For service providers involved in such offenses, the maximum fine has been increased from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore. While the period of debarment from conducting public examinations has been extended from four years to eight years. For organized examination-related crime, the minimum imprisonment has been increased from five years to seven years, while the minimum fine has been increased from ₹1 crore to ₹10 crore. The maximum imprisonment remains ten years. (Lok Sabha, 2026).

These changes indicate that the legislation confines not only individual candidates but also institutional and organized networks involved in the facilitation of malpractice.

2. Special Task Force for investigation: Under the 2024 Framework, investigations were to be taken in charge by police officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police. The 2026 amendment, moreover, empowers the central government to constitute the Special Task Force (STF) for investigating offenses under the Act. When the Central Government constitutes an STF under amended provision, the investigation must be exclusively undertaken by the STF (Lok Sabha, 2026).

This provision is particularly relevant to cases involving multiple jurisdictions or organized networks, where traditional local investigation may undergo coordination challenges.

3. Time-bound investigation: The amendment introduces a two-month deadline for investigation to be completed. For investigations conducted by police officers, this period begins from the date on which the information is recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. When the investigation is assigned to a Central Investigating Agency or a Special Task Force, the two-month period begins from the date of the relevant reference or notification (Lok Sabha, 2026).

The objective is to reduce delays in investigation. However, the effectiveness of this provision will depend on investigative capacity and compliance with the prescribed timeline.

4. Special Fast Track Courts: The amendment mandates the state government and union territory administrations to designate courts of sessions as special fast-track courts in consultation with the chief justice of the concerned high court. Proceedings before these courts are to continue on a day-to-day basis and complete the trials within three months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. Additionally, they may try connected offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the same trial (Lok Sabha, 2026).

On 30 July, the government reported that six Special Fast Track Courts were operational across the country, indicating preparatory institutional capacity for the speedy adjudication of public-examination offenses. However, the existence of these courts alone should not be treated as evidence of the effectiveness of the 2026 amendment, which received presidential assent only on 31 July 2026 (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 2026b).

5. Time-bound appeals: The amendment creates a specialized appeal mechanism before a bench of two High Court judges. Appeals must ordinarily be filed within 30 days of the judgment, sentence, or order. The High Court may permit a delayed appeal where sufficient cause is shown, but no appeal can be entertained after 90 days. Appeals are to be disposed of, as far as possible, within three months of admission (Lok Sabha, 2026).

This provision seeks to balance the need for speedy adjudication with the possibility of genuine delays that may prevent an appellant from filing an appeal within the prescribed period. The amendment also mandates time-bound disposal of appeals. Together, these provisions attempt to set up an enforcement chain in which investigation, trial, and appeal are all subjected to defined timelines.

Performance

Since the 2026 Amendment Act has only recently come into force, its long-term performance cannot yet be assessed through conviction rates, reduction in malpractices, or trial completion rates. It would therefore be premature to conclude that the amendment has improved examination integrity.

The implementation record of the 2024 Act, however, provides an initial indication of enforcement activity. During the parliamentary discussion on the amendment, the government reported that there have been 52 FIRs registered under the 2024 Act (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 2026d). The registration of FIRs demonstrates enforcement activity, but it does not by itself establish that the legislation has reduced examination malpractice or improved examination integrity.

The 2026 amendment builds on this enforcement system further by introducing faster investigation and adjudication mechanisms. As of 30 July 2026, the government reported that six Special Fast Track Courts were operational (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 2026b). The existence of these courts indicates preparatory institutional capacity for speedy adjudication but does not by itself demonstrate the effectiveness of the 2026 amendment. However, their existence alone does not demonstrate the effectiveness of the reforms, which will depend on their capacity, implementation, and ability to ensure the timely disposal of cases.

Still, the number of FIRs or courts cannot tell us whether the policy is effective. Future analysts should study the number of investigations finished within two months, the number of cases that went into trial, the length of the trials, the conviction and acquittal rates, and the ability of the guilty to be debarred from providing their services.

This makes systematic monitoring particularly important. The success of the legislation should be measured ultimately by outcomes rather than the number of provisions enacted.

Impact

The immediate impact of the amendment is likely to be strongest in the ambit of deterrence. Higher imprisonment terms, larger financial penalties, and longer debarment periods increase the potential costs of committing organized examination malpractice. The focus on service providers is particularly relevant because examination irregularities involve actors operating beyond individual candidates.

The amendment may also strengthen public confidence if investigations and trials conducted are fair and quick. A legal system where examination offenses remain unresolved for years may weaken deterrence and leave affected candidates uncertain about the validity of an examination.

However, these provisions should be viewed as measures to strengthen the post-offense accountability, rather than as evidence that examination malpractice itself will decline. Their actual impact will depend on the capacity of examination authorities, courts, and other investigation agencies to implement the provision effectively.

Emerging issues

1. Judicial Capacity Constraints: The amendment introduces strict timelines for investigations and trials, but their implementation depends on sufficient capacity of the judicial system to meet them. This is not simply a question of creating fast-track courts, but it also requires adequate judges, prosecutors, court staff, and infrastructure.

The existing functioning of fast-track courts illustrates this challenge. As per data available on the National Judicial Data Grid, cited by the Department of Justice, 6,401,789 cases were pending in High Courts and 49,549,089 cases in subordinate courts as of 9 March 2026 (Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, 2026).

This does not mean that the time-bound mechanism under the act will necessarily fail. However, it emphasizes an important implementation risk: statutory timelines need to be accompanied by sufficient institutional capacity. Without adequate resources, statutory timelines may place additional pressure on courts without necessarily ensuring faster and fairer disposal.

2. Lack of Centralized Data: The second emerging issue is the absence of a comprehensive national database on examination malpractice. In a Rajya Sabha response dated 29 July 2024, the Ministry of Education stated that “data regarding examination-specific incidents is not maintained centrally” (Ministry of Education, 2024c).

This creates a significant policy-evaluation gap. Without exam-wise and state-wise data on incidents, affected candidates, investigations, and outcomes, it becomes difficult to determine the geographical distribution of examination malpractices.’

The absence of a centralized database also makes it harder to assess whether stronger legal penalties are reducing the malpractices over time. The implementation of the 2026 amendment would therefore benefit from a centralized reporting mechanism that records complaints, FIRs, investigations, charge sheets, convictions, and action against examination service providers.

3. Vulnerabilities within the Examination Ecosystem: The recent investigations show that examination malpractices may have involved insiders with legitimate access to exam materials, which allows it to become an issue related to institutional security rather than simply a problem of candidate misconduct.

The NEET-UG 2026 investigation illustrates how examination security can be compromised through actors with legitimate access to examination material. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) states that P.V. Kulkarni, a chemistry lecturer involved in the examination process on behalf of the NTA, had access to question papers. He allegedly disclosed questions during special coaching sessions before the examination. The investigation also identifies the middleman who mobilized students, with certain candidates paying several lakhs of rupees to attend these sessions (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 2026a).

As the investigation proceeded, another examination expert working for the NTA was also accused of having access to Biology and Zoology examination papers and allegedly disclosing questions to prospective candidates during coaching sessions (Ministry of Education, 2026).

These developments point to the vulnerability that post-offense penalties alone cannot address the integrity of the exam chain itself. From question paper preparation and secure storage to obtaining permissions, transportation, digital handling, and distribution to students, every stage of the examination process presents potential points of compromise. The policy challenge is therefore to strengthen preventive controls alongside criminal enforcement.

Way Forward

The amendment strengthens post-offence enforcement, but examination integrity ultimately depends on preventing breaches before they occur. Adequate judicial capacity must be ensured to make the time-bound provisions a reality. A comprehensive national database on examination malpractice needs to be created to facilitate informed policymaking and identify recurring vulnerabilities across the examination process.

At the same time, examination authorities should strengthen preventative measures that could be institutionalized through periodic security audits, standardized access-control protocols for question papers, digital tracking systems, and clear accountability mechanisms for examination service providers. This would help shift the approach from responding to malpractices after they occur to preventing breaches before they occur, thereby protecting the credibility and integrity of public examinations.

References

Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice. (2026, March 12). Pendency of cases in courts [Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2352]. https://www.doj.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/04/b7b4da487543be9a9f1d1558d06d76d2.pdf

Lok Sabha. (2026). The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 139 of 2026).

Ministry of Education. (2024a, June 19). Cancellation of UGC-NET June 2024 examination. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2026809&lang=2&reg=48

Ministry of Education. (2024b, June 22). Ministry of Education entrusts the matter of alleged irregularities in NEET (UG) Examination 2024 to CBI for comprehensive investigation. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2028065&lang=2&reg=48

Ministry of Education. (2024c, July 29). Incidents of paper leak [Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 943]. Parliament of India. https://sansad.in/getFile/loksabhaquestions/annex/182/AU943_3Bo4mf.pdf?source=pqals

Ministry of Education. (2026, May 16). NEET-UG 2026 leak probe: CBI nabs NTA expert from Pune for alleged biology paper leak. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2261790&lang=2&reg=48

Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department. (2024, February 12). The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (Act No. 1 of 2024). The Gazette of India, Extraordinary. https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2024/251826.pdf

Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. (2026, August 13). Monsoon Session of Parliament adjourns sine die; 12 Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2298901&lang=1&reg=48

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions. (2026a, May 15). CBI arrests kingpin in NEET-UG 2026 paper leak case. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2261565&lang=2&reg=48&utm_source=chatgpt.com

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions. (2026b, July 30). Dr. Jitendra Singh tables the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, in Rajya Sabha. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2291811&lang=1&reg=3

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions. (2026c, July 30). Rajya Sabha passes the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, by voice vote. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/erelcontent.aspx?lang=2&reg=48&relid=292242

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions. (2026d, July 29). Lok Sabha passes Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026. Press Information Bureau. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2291258&lang=1&reg=1

Press Trust of India. (2003, November 23). CAT will be cancelled after CBI gives proof. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cat-will-be-cancelled-after-cbi-gives-proof/articleshow/297599.cms?from=mdr

About the Contributor

Rishika Soni is a second-year B.A. Liberal Arts (Research & Honours) student at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, with academic interests in Political Science and Economics. Her interests include public policy, governance, and evidence-based policy research.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the reviewers and IMPRI team for the guidance throughout the process.

Reviewed by: Neha Kumari and Pallavi Lad

Disclaimer

This article is intended for academic purposes only. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of IMPRI or any government institution.