Strengthening Fight Against Examination Malpractice: Critical Analysis Of 2026 Amendment Act

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was enacted by the parliament of India in the year 2024 and the preamble of the Act says “An Act to prevent unfair means in the public examinations and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” The Act received the royal assent on 12/02/2024 and came into force on 21-6-2024, vide Noti. No. S.O. 2422(E), dt. 21-6-2024.

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026 (which received the assent of the President on 31 July 2026) was introduced and passed by both Houses of Parliament in response to widespread public outrage following the leak of the undergraduate National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) question paper. The nationwide protests, particularly those led by Gen-Z students at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, intensified demands for accountability, ultimately leading to the resignation of the Union Education Minister and prompting urgent legislative intervention. Although the NEET-UG controversy acted as the immediate catalyst, it was not an isolated incident. India has witnessed several instances of question paper leaks and examination malpractices in recent years, including the UGC-NET 2024 examination, recruitment examinations such as the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination 2024, Fire & Emergency Services Recruitment Scan in UT of Jammu and Kashmir and various State-level public recruitment and entrance examinations, exposing systemic vulnerabilities in the conduct of public examinations. Against this backdrop, the Amendment Act, 2026 seeks to strengthen the legal framework by providing for time-bound investigations, expeditious trials, and stricter institutional mechanisms to prevent and deter the use of unfair means in public examinations.

What is the principal purpose of Amendment?

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026 is a revised version of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act of 2024 (hereinafter referred as Act). Its principal goal is to reduce exam malpractices, ensure timely investigations and trials, and provide a stronger deterrent against organised criminal organisations and institutions participating in such acts in order to protect transparent and merit-based selections. Section 12-A of the Act provides that investigations must be completed within a period of two months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in-charge of the police station, or by the central investigating agencies, or by the Special Task Force. Sub section (4) of section 12-A mandates that in every trial of an offence under this Act, the proceedings shall be continued on day-to-day basis, until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Special Fast Track Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, finds that adjournment of the same beyond the following day is necessary and also there is proviso appended to this sub section which mandates that such trial shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. Furthermore, sub section (2) of section 12-B of the Act provides that High Court appeals must be heard by a two-judge Division Bench and decided within three months. The penalty for organised offences under Section 10(1) has been increased from 3-5 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹10 lakh under the 2024 Act to a prison term of 5-10 years for prominent and active members and up to ₹50 lakh fine. The fine for masterminds has increased from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore, with a minimum 8-year debarment from services. The prison term for abetment and minor involvement in such acts has been enhanced from at least 1 to 3 years under Section 11 to 3-10 years or 5-10 years.

How does the Amendment Act, 2026 deal with procedural delays and court adjournments?

Courts cannot grant adjournments beyond the next day unless there are stated, exceptional circumstances. All cases pending under the 2024 Act will be immediately moved to newly designated special fast-track courts as mandated by sub sections (4), (5) of section 12-A. Sub section (7) of section 12-A provides that States and Union Territories are required to designate special public prosecutors only for these proceedings.

How does the amendment Act, 2026 aim to address fast adjudication, and what structural challenges do these courts face?

Although the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) (Amendment) Act, 2026 mandates every State and Union Territory to designate a Court of Session as a Special Fast Track Court for the trial of offences under the Act, the practical implementation of this mandate raises significant concerns in view of the existing judicial backlog. There are also several special statutes which have established Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) for speedy disposal of cases, particularly cases of rape and offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The table below shows the pendency of cases in these Fast Track Special Courts, at the end of each year and gives an idea of the workload and extent of the ability of these specialised courts to clear the backlog of such cases.

Source: Unstarred Question No. 588, Rajya Sabha, Ministry of Law and Justice, Answered on July 23, 2026; PRS.

As it is evident from the above table that the current fast-track court system is already under considerable strain, with average pendency increasing from over 2.02 lakh cases in 2023 to approximately 2.45 lakh cases by 2025. These statistics indicate that merely designating Courts of Session as Special Fast Track Courts, without a corresponding increase in judicial infrastructure, manpower, and financial resources, may not effectively achieve the legislative objective of ensuring speedy trials for offences relating to examination fraud.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which superseded the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) mandates that rape and POCSO investigations be finished within two months. In a similar vein, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 mandates that an inquiry be finished and a chargesheet filed within sixty days. The below mentioned table shows the cases pending for investigation at the end of year 2024.

Source: Crime in India 2024 Report, National Crime Records Bureau; PRS.

The above-mentioned graph reveals that more than 40% of the cases pending for investigation in 2024 under these laws were pending for more than six months. Key bottlenecks include the absence of accused individuals or the failure to provide significant witnesses, adjournments without adequate cause, and the failure to submit critical papers or evidence. Many cases are delayed due to a lack of case property, inability of investigative officials, and frequent adjournments. The new amendment Act, 2026 reduces adjournments, but its efficacy is contingent on judicial enforcement and administrative improvements. For the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, the experience of the first two years also raises concerns regarding its implementation and effectiveness. Despite the enactment of the legislation in 2024, the Act resulted in zero convictions over the subsequent two-year period, highlighting a significant gap between the creation of a stringent legal framework and its actual enforcement. This lack of convictions assumes particular significance in the context of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) (Amendment) Act, 2026, which seeks to strengthen the existing framework and provide for more effective prosecution and adjudication of offences relating to unfair means in public examinations.

Author is a Lawyer working as Research Assistant at High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Views are personal.