The Public Examination (Prevention Of Unfair Means) Act 2024: A Legislative Commentary
The current cancellation of the UGC-NET exam by the Ministry of Education just a
day after it was conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), has stirred
quite the buzz. The exam was scrapped due to allegations of paper leak, adding
to the ongoing NEET-UG medical entrance exam scam, which is under review by the
Supreme Court of India. In order to tackle such recurring issues, the government
has now rolled out a new law called the Public Examinations (Prevention of
Unfair Means) Act 2024.
This new legislation aims to crack down on paper leaks, individual malpractices, and organized fraud in national level recruitment exams, to ensure a fairer and more transparent academic process. Understanding the nuances of this new act is crucial as it sets the groundwork for a more secure and equitable examination environment. By examining the key provisions and projected impact of the Public Examinations Prevention of Unfair Means Act 2024, we can truly appreciate its role in enhancing the credibility of our education and recruitment systems.
Scope Of The Act
The Act comprises of six chapters and nineteen sections along with one schedule. It was enacted on February 12, 2024 and became operational from June 21, 2024. The Act is applicable throughout India and prescribes the State Legislatives to apply the given module to tackle malpractices in examinations conducted by State Government agencies.
Section 2 of the Act serves as the definition section and provides comprehensive explanations for various key terms that are used throughout the legislation. These definitions are crucial to ensure clarity and precise application of the Act's provisions, establishing a robust framework to prevent unfair practices in public examinations.
Important Definitions
Section 2 of the Public Examinations Prevention of Unfair Means Act 2024 provides crucial definitions essential for interpreting the legislation. Under this section, a "candidate" (Section 2(a)) is defined as an individual authorized by the public examination authority to participate in exams, including those permitted to have a scribe. The term "competent authority" (Section 2(c)) refers to the Ministry or relevant Central Government agencies overseeing the examination administrative matters. Additionally, "conduct of public examination" (Section 2(e)) encompasses all prescribed procedures, activities for administering exams and ensuring standardized processes. The term "institution" (Section 2(f)) broadly covers entities other than the examination authority and its service providers that are involved in exam-related activities.
Further definitions include "organized crime" (Section 2(h)) which denotes unlawful activities involving collusion to manipulate exam outcomes for personal gain. "Person associated with a service provider" (Section 2(i)) clarifies individuals performing services on behalf of the service providers engaged by the examination authority. "Public examination" (Section 2(k)) specifies exams conducted by the designated authority or those notified by the Central Government. The "public examination authority" (Section 2(l)) refers to bodies designated by the Central Government for conducting exams. Lastly, "public examination centre" (Section 2(m)) defines premises selected by service providers or the examination authority for conducting exams, ensuring security and compliance with examination protocols. These definitions collectively establish a comprehensive framework for enforcing fair practices and integrity in public examinations.
Key Highlights
The Schedule which is defined under Section 2(k) includes a comprehensive list of examinations conducted by various entities. This includes the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), and Ministries or Departments of the Central Government, along with their attached and subordinate offices, for staff recruitment purposes. Additionally, examinations conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) are covered, as well as any other authority that are designated by notification from the Central Government. This Schedule outlines the range of examinations that are under the purview of the Act ensuring standardized regulations across diverse exam agencies in India.
Section 3 under Chapter II of the Act details the various forms of misconduct related to the administration of public examinations. It is the most important section that recognizes the offences. These include leaking question papers or answer keys, conspiring to facilitate such leaks, and unauthorized access to exam materials. The Act also prohibits actions that are aimed at monetary or wrongful gain, including providing unauthorized assistance to candidates, tampering with answer sheets, and violating the prescribed norms set by the Central Government for examination conduct. Moreover, this legislation addresses any disruptions to examination processes, prohibiting unauthorized individuals from entering the exam premises with the intention to disrupt exams.
It also mandates stringent measures against the unauthorized disclosure of confidential exam information by those entrusted with exam-related responsibilities. The Act also emphasizes the responsibility of service providers to promptly report any instances of misconduct to relevant authorities, ensuring swift and decisive action against any attempts to compromise the integrity of public examinations. These provisions collectively strengthen the framework for maintaining fairness and reliability in the nation's examination systems.
Section 4 reiterates the above provisions by prohibiting collusion or conspiracy to facilitate unfair means during examinations. Section 5 addresses disruptions to the conduct of public examinations. It prohibits unauthorized persons from entering the examination premises with the intention to disrupt exams and also restricts authorized personnel from accessing or leaking confidential examination materials before the designated time. Moreover, it mandates that individuals entrusted with such examination duties shall refrain from disclosing any kind of confidential information for undue advantage.
Section 6 outlines the responsibilities of all service providers in reporting any instances of unfair means or offenses provided under Sections 3, 4, and 5 to the police authorities and the public examination authority. It specifies that if a service provider is involved in or facilitates any of these offenses then the public examination authority shall report the matter to the relevant authorities. These provisions collectively aim to safeguard the integrity of public examinations by penalizing and preventing misconduct.
Section 7 of the Act prohibits the unauthorized use of premises other than the designated examination centers for conducting public examinations. It constitutes an offense for service providers or their associates to utilize any premises without written approval from the public examination authority, except in cases of force majeure where prior consent couldn't be obtained. This provision ensures that all examinations are conducted under controlled and authorized environments, safeguarding the integrity and security of the examination process.
Section 8 provides offenses related to service providers and their associates. It is considered an offense if any person (including those associated with service providers) assists unauthorized individuals or groups in any manner during the examinations. It is also an offense if they fail to promptly report instances of unfair practices. Further, if an offense committed by a service provider implicates any of its officers like directors or managers, who are found to have consented or connived in the particular offense, they shall also be held liable unless they can prove that they were unaware of the offense and took all necessary precautions to prevent it. These measures underscore the Act's stringent approach to ensuring accountability and transparency in the conduct of public examinations.
Punishments Prescribed
Chapter III of the Act prescribes severe penalties for various offenses related to public examinations. Section 9 categorizes all offenses under the Act as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, highlighting the seriousness with which these violations are treated under the law.
Section 10 outlines specific punishments for offenses committed under the Act. Individuals found guilty of resorting to unfair means can face imprisonment ranging from three to five years, along with fines up to ten lakh rupees. In cases where the fine is not paid, additional imprisonment may be imposed as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Service providers are subject to harsh penalties as well, including fines up to one crore rupees, recovery of examination costs, and a four-year prohibition from conducting any public examinations. If offenses are found to involve the consent or connivance of directors or senior management of service providers, they may face imprisonment ranging from three to ten years and fines up to one crore rupees.
Section 11 addresses any kind of organized crimes in the context of public examinations. Individuals or institutions that are involved in organized criminal activities related to examinations shall face imprisonment extending from five to ten years and fines starting from one crore rupees. Additionally, properties of institutions involved in such organized crimes may be attached and forfeited with proportional examination costs recovered from them. These stringent measures aim to deter and punish serious misconduct.
Inquiry And Investigation
Chapter IV of the Act empowers officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police in order to investigate offenses under the Act. Additionally, the Central Government retains authority to transfer investigations to any Central Investigating Agency, irrespective of the rank stipulation.
Moving to Chapter V, Section 13 designates Chairpersons, Members, officers, and employees of the public examination authority as public servants under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, when executing provisions of this Act. They are protected from legal action for acts performed in good faith while discharging official duties or exercising powers, ensuring immunity from suits, prosecutions, or other legal proceedings. Furthermore, Section 16 grants the Central Government the authority to formulate rules through notification in the Official Gazette to effectively implement the Act. These rules encompass establishing procedures for conducting public examinations and addressing any other matter.
Analysis
In the recent case of Reshmi Bhagat v State of West Bengal[1], the Calcutta High Court held that the primary goal of public examinations should not be to unduly burden the candidates. Alongside this judicial intervention, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024 stands as an essential legislation that is aimed at curbing unfair practices and malpractices in public examinations. While its final objective is to safeguard all genuine candidates and to prosecute wrongdoers, the effectiveness of this Act hinges on proper implementation around rising incidents of paper leaks, which have led to the cancellation of 41 recruitment exams affecting 1.4 crore applicants across 15 states, as reported by The Indian Express in February 2024.
The Act which is applicable to examinations conducted by seven key bodies including the UPSC and SSC, emphasizes on legislative authority over these processes. However, its exclusion of state-conducted exams where malpractices are particularly prevalent, definitely stresses the need for a comprehensive state-level measure. Inconsistency in state laws and the absence of a unified adoption mandate pose challenges, potentially obstructing uniform application and efficacy at the grassroots level. Moreover, loopholes such as undefined investigation timelines and lack of interim measures during probes by agencies like the CBI raise critical procedural concerns, particularly evident in ongoing cases like the NEET-UG scam.
Critics have already highlighted exemptions that shield students from accountability under the Act, potentially allowing individuals to evade punishment by claiming ignorance or minimal involvement. Advocates like Charu Mathur argue for deeper systemic reforms beyond punitive measures, advocating for enhanced technological integration, educational campaigns, and broader support systems to alleviate academic pressures and discourage malpractice. The Act's punitive focus, while essential, must be balanced with proactive measures to prevent cheating through innovative exam security and comprehensive educational reforms.
Additionally, the formation of a high-level committee to overhaul NTA processes and enhance security protocols signifies a step towards systemic improvement. Yet, challenges persist in tackling commercial entities, such as coaching centers, and consulting firms exploiting exam vulnerabilities for profit. As stakeholders await the Act's impact on reforming the examination landscape, uncertainties regarding its holistic effectiveness remain, particularly in addressing diverse examination formats and fostering nationwide compliance amid varying infrastructural capacities and resistance to change. Alongside deterrents, it's crucial to address why students and institutions turn to cheating. We also need to ease academic pressure with better resources and alternative paths to success. By focusing on prevention, we can ensure fair exams where success is earned through merit.
In conclusion, while the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024 marks a significant legislative stride, its success hinges on overcoming implementation hurdles, fostering broader consensus, and fortifying educational integrity through proactive reforms beyond punitive measures.
End-Notes:
This new legislation aims to crack down on paper leaks, individual malpractices, and organized fraud in national level recruitment exams, to ensure a fairer and more transparent academic process. Understanding the nuances of this new act is crucial as it sets the groundwork for a more secure and equitable examination environment. By examining the key provisions and projected impact of the Public Examinations Prevention of Unfair Means Act 2024, we can truly appreciate its role in enhancing the credibility of our education and recruitment systems.
Scope Of The Act
The Act comprises of six chapters and nineteen sections along with one schedule. It was enacted on February 12, 2024 and became operational from June 21, 2024. The Act is applicable throughout India and prescribes the State Legislatives to apply the given module to tackle malpractices in examinations conducted by State Government agencies.
Section 2 of the Act serves as the definition section and provides comprehensive explanations for various key terms that are used throughout the legislation. These definitions are crucial to ensure clarity and precise application of the Act's provisions, establishing a robust framework to prevent unfair practices in public examinations.
Important Definitions
Section 2 of the Public Examinations Prevention of Unfair Means Act 2024 provides crucial definitions essential for interpreting the legislation. Under this section, a "candidate" (Section 2(a)) is defined as an individual authorized by the public examination authority to participate in exams, including those permitted to have a scribe. The term "competent authority" (Section 2(c)) refers to the Ministry or relevant Central Government agencies overseeing the examination administrative matters. Additionally, "conduct of public examination" (Section 2(e)) encompasses all prescribed procedures, activities for administering exams and ensuring standardized processes. The term "institution" (Section 2(f)) broadly covers entities other than the examination authority and its service providers that are involved in exam-related activities.
Further definitions include "organized crime" (Section 2(h)) which denotes unlawful activities involving collusion to manipulate exam outcomes for personal gain. "Person associated with a service provider" (Section 2(i)) clarifies individuals performing services on behalf of the service providers engaged by the examination authority. "Public examination" (Section 2(k)) specifies exams conducted by the designated authority or those notified by the Central Government. The "public examination authority" (Section 2(l)) refers to bodies designated by the Central Government for conducting exams. Lastly, "public examination centre" (Section 2(m)) defines premises selected by service providers or the examination authority for conducting exams, ensuring security and compliance with examination protocols. These definitions collectively establish a comprehensive framework for enforcing fair practices and integrity in public examinations.
Key Highlights
The Schedule which is defined under Section 2(k) includes a comprehensive list of examinations conducted by various entities. This includes the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), and Ministries or Departments of the Central Government, along with their attached and subordinate offices, for staff recruitment purposes. Additionally, examinations conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) are covered, as well as any other authority that are designated by notification from the Central Government. This Schedule outlines the range of examinations that are under the purview of the Act ensuring standardized regulations across diverse exam agencies in India.
Section 3 under Chapter II of the Act details the various forms of misconduct related to the administration of public examinations. It is the most important section that recognizes the offences. These include leaking question papers or answer keys, conspiring to facilitate such leaks, and unauthorized access to exam materials. The Act also prohibits actions that are aimed at monetary or wrongful gain, including providing unauthorized assistance to candidates, tampering with answer sheets, and violating the prescribed norms set by the Central Government for examination conduct. Moreover, this legislation addresses any disruptions to examination processes, prohibiting unauthorized individuals from entering the exam premises with the intention to disrupt exams.
It also mandates stringent measures against the unauthorized disclosure of confidential exam information by those entrusted with exam-related responsibilities. The Act also emphasizes the responsibility of service providers to promptly report any instances of misconduct to relevant authorities, ensuring swift and decisive action against any attempts to compromise the integrity of public examinations. These provisions collectively strengthen the framework for maintaining fairness and reliability in the nation's examination systems.
Section 4 reiterates the above provisions by prohibiting collusion or conspiracy to facilitate unfair means during examinations. Section 5 addresses disruptions to the conduct of public examinations. It prohibits unauthorized persons from entering the examination premises with the intention to disrupt exams and also restricts authorized personnel from accessing or leaking confidential examination materials before the designated time. Moreover, it mandates that individuals entrusted with such examination duties shall refrain from disclosing any kind of confidential information for undue advantage.
Section 6 outlines the responsibilities of all service providers in reporting any instances of unfair means or offenses provided under Sections 3, 4, and 5 to the police authorities and the public examination authority. It specifies that if a service provider is involved in or facilitates any of these offenses then the public examination authority shall report the matter to the relevant authorities. These provisions collectively aim to safeguard the integrity of public examinations by penalizing and preventing misconduct.
Section 7 of the Act prohibits the unauthorized use of premises other than the designated examination centers for conducting public examinations. It constitutes an offense for service providers or their associates to utilize any premises without written approval from the public examination authority, except in cases of force majeure where prior consent couldn't be obtained. This provision ensures that all examinations are conducted under controlled and authorized environments, safeguarding the integrity and security of the examination process.
Section 8 provides offenses related to service providers and their associates. It is considered an offense if any person (including those associated with service providers) assists unauthorized individuals or groups in any manner during the examinations. It is also an offense if they fail to promptly report instances of unfair practices. Further, if an offense committed by a service provider implicates any of its officers like directors or managers, who are found to have consented or connived in the particular offense, they shall also be held liable unless they can prove that they were unaware of the offense and took all necessary precautions to prevent it. These measures underscore the Act's stringent approach to ensuring accountability and transparency in the conduct of public examinations.
Punishments Prescribed
Chapter III of the Act prescribes severe penalties for various offenses related to public examinations. Section 9 categorizes all offenses under the Act as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, highlighting the seriousness with which these violations are treated under the law.
Section 10 outlines specific punishments for offenses committed under the Act. Individuals found guilty of resorting to unfair means can face imprisonment ranging from three to five years, along with fines up to ten lakh rupees. In cases where the fine is not paid, additional imprisonment may be imposed as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Service providers are subject to harsh penalties as well, including fines up to one crore rupees, recovery of examination costs, and a four-year prohibition from conducting any public examinations. If offenses are found to involve the consent or connivance of directors or senior management of service providers, they may face imprisonment ranging from three to ten years and fines up to one crore rupees.
Section 11 addresses any kind of organized crimes in the context of public examinations. Individuals or institutions that are involved in organized criminal activities related to examinations shall face imprisonment extending from five to ten years and fines starting from one crore rupees. Additionally, properties of institutions involved in such organized crimes may be attached and forfeited with proportional examination costs recovered from them. These stringent measures aim to deter and punish serious misconduct.
Inquiry And Investigation
Chapter IV of the Act empowers officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police in order to investigate offenses under the Act. Additionally, the Central Government retains authority to transfer investigations to any Central Investigating Agency, irrespective of the rank stipulation.
Moving to Chapter V, Section 13 designates Chairpersons, Members, officers, and employees of the public examination authority as public servants under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, when executing provisions of this Act. They are protected from legal action for acts performed in good faith while discharging official duties or exercising powers, ensuring immunity from suits, prosecutions, or other legal proceedings. Furthermore, Section 16 grants the Central Government the authority to formulate rules through notification in the Official Gazette to effectively implement the Act. These rules encompass establishing procedures for conducting public examinations and addressing any other matter.
Analysis
In the recent case of Reshmi Bhagat v State of West Bengal[1], the Calcutta High Court held that the primary goal of public examinations should not be to unduly burden the candidates. Alongside this judicial intervention, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024 stands as an essential legislation that is aimed at curbing unfair practices and malpractices in public examinations. While its final objective is to safeguard all genuine candidates and to prosecute wrongdoers, the effectiveness of this Act hinges on proper implementation around rising incidents of paper leaks, which have led to the cancellation of 41 recruitment exams affecting 1.4 crore applicants across 15 states, as reported by The Indian Express in February 2024.
The Act which is applicable to examinations conducted by seven key bodies including the UPSC and SSC, emphasizes on legislative authority over these processes. However, its exclusion of state-conducted exams where malpractices are particularly prevalent, definitely stresses the need for a comprehensive state-level measure. Inconsistency in state laws and the absence of a unified adoption mandate pose challenges, potentially obstructing uniform application and efficacy at the grassroots level. Moreover, loopholes such as undefined investigation timelines and lack of interim measures during probes by agencies like the CBI raise critical procedural concerns, particularly evident in ongoing cases like the NEET-UG scam.
Critics have already highlighted exemptions that shield students from accountability under the Act, potentially allowing individuals to evade punishment by claiming ignorance or minimal involvement. Advocates like Charu Mathur argue for deeper systemic reforms beyond punitive measures, advocating for enhanced technological integration, educational campaigns, and broader support systems to alleviate academic pressures and discourage malpractice. The Act's punitive focus, while essential, must be balanced with proactive measures to prevent cheating through innovative exam security and comprehensive educational reforms.
Additionally, the formation of a high-level committee to overhaul NTA processes and enhance security protocols signifies a step towards systemic improvement. Yet, challenges persist in tackling commercial entities, such as coaching centers, and consulting firms exploiting exam vulnerabilities for profit. As stakeholders await the Act's impact on reforming the examination landscape, uncertainties regarding its holistic effectiveness remain, particularly in addressing diverse examination formats and fostering nationwide compliance amid varying infrastructural capacities and resistance to change. Alongside deterrents, it's crucial to address why students and institutions turn to cheating. We also need to ease academic pressure with better resources and alternative paths to success. By focusing on prevention, we can ensure fair exams where success is earned through merit.
In conclusion, while the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024 marks a significant legislative stride, its success hinges on overcoming implementation hurdles, fostering broader consensus, and fortifying educational integrity through proactive reforms beyond punitive measures.
End-Notes:
- Reshmi Bhagat v State of West Bengal 2024 SCC Online Cal 3040
- https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/20100/1/a2024-01.pdf
- Reshmi Bhagat v State of West Bengal 2024 SCC Online Cal 3040
- https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/articles/neet-paper-leak-and-public-examinations-prevention-of-unfair-means-act-260865
- https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2003211
- https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/articles/in-depth-analysis-public-examinations-prevention-unfair-means-act-263436
- https://www.barandbench.com/news/centre-notifies-law-to-tackle-unfair-practices-punish-paper-leaks-public-exams
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-examinations-prevention-unfair-means-act-2024-overview-wjptc/
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/maharashtra-govt-tables-bill-to-prevent-paper-leaks-in-competitive-exams-with-jail-term-and-fines/articleshow/111515228.cms
- https://scroll.in/article/1069926/will-stricter-laws-prevent-paper-leaks
- https://www.livemint.com/economy/new-law-targets-centralized-exam-paper-leaks-ignores-state-level-fraud-concern-11719137820398.html
Law Article in India
Lawyers in India - Search By City
LawArticles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments