Govt introduces Bill in Lok Sabha for stricter measures to check paper leaks
The Public Examinations (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Lok Sabha to amend the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.
The Bill raises imprisonment for individuals using unfair means from the existing 3-5 years to 5-10 years, and raises the maximum fine from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh.
For organised offences, such as syndicate-driven question paper leaks, the Bill proposes a minimum sentence of 7 years (up to 10 years) and a fine of up to ₹10 crore for entities and individuals involved.
The Bill provides for fast-track courts in every state for speedy trial of the accused, and mandates that investigations into paper leak cases be completed within a two-month time frame, to be overseen by a Special Task Force (STF).
Penalties on examination service providers found complicit in malpractice are also proposed to be enhanced.
The Bill was introduced amid continuing incidents of examination paper leaks in public recruitment and entrance examinations nationwide; discussion in the House was disrupted, leading to adjournments.
Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 — the parent law
The 2024 Act was India's first standalone central law to criminalise malpractice in public examinations, enacted after repeated paper-leak incidents disrupted recruitment and entrance exams (including NEET-UG 2024). It defines "unfair means" broadly: unauthorised leakage of question papers/answer keys, impersonation, tampering with computer systems used for exams, manipulating merit lists, and running fake examinations or issuing fake admit cards for monetary gain.
Key Details
- Original punishment for general offences: imprisonment of 3-5 years and a fine up to ₹10 lakh.
- Service providers found liable: fine up to ₹1 crore, recovery of examination costs, and debarment from examination work for 4 years; if senior management colluded, imprisonment of 3-10 years plus a ₹1 crore fine.
- Organised crime under the original Act: imprisonment of 5-10 years and a fine of at least ₹1 crore, with provision for attachment of property.
- All offences under the Act are cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable — meaning police can arrest without a warrant, bail is not a matter of right, and cases cannot be privately settled.
The 2026 Amendment Bill escalates these very thresholds — raising the general fine ceiling five-fold (₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh) and introducing a distinct, harsher band (minimum 7 years, fine up to ₹10 crore) for organised paper-leak rackets, while adding fast-track courts and a time-bound STF-led investigation mechanism that the 2024 Act did not prescribe.
Legislative Process: Introducing and Amending a Bill in Lok Sabha
An Amendment Bill follows the same procedural stages as any ordinary legislation. Introduction (First Reading) requires only a motion for leave to introduce, decided by voice vote under the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha — no substantive discussion occurs at this stage. This is distinct from Money Bills (Article 110), which can be introduced only in Lok Sabha and only on the President's recommendation.
Key Details
- After introduction, a Bill may be referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee for examination, then undergoes a Second Reading (general discussion plus clause-by-clause consideration) and Third Reading (final passage).
- A Bill passed by Lok Sabha must also be passed by Rajya Sabha (an Amendment Bill of this kind is an "ordinary bill," not a Money Bill), and then receives Presidential assent under Article 111 to become law.
- Education, the subject matter of examinations, falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List (List III, Seventh Schedule) — inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 — allowing both Parliament and State legislatures to legislate; under Article 254, a central law prevails over an inconsistent state law unless the state law has received Presidential assent.
Because examinations and education sit in the Concurrent List, the Centre's anti-paper-leak framework operates alongside separate state-level anti-cheating laws (several states already have their own statutes), making this Bill a central overlay rather than an exclusive central occupation of the field.
Fast-Track Courts (FTCs) — institutional mechanism for speedy trial
Fast-track courts are special courts constituted by state governments in consultation with the High Courts to expedite specific categories of pending or newly arising cases, easing the backlog in regular sessions courts. They were first recommended by the 11th Finance Commission (2000), which allocated funds to set up 1,734 additional fast-track courts for long-pending sessions cases and undertrial matters.
Key Details
- The original 2000 scheme was centrally funded till 2010-11, after which states were expected to sustain FTCs from their own resources.
- A more recent variant, Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), was created under a 2019 centrally sponsored scheme specifically for rape and POCSO Act cases.
- The 2026 Bill proposes a similar dedicated fast-track mechanism, but for paper-leak and examination-fraud cases, to be set up in every state.
The Bill borrows the fast-track court model — used previously for backlog clearance and for sexual offences — and extends it to examination-fraud litigation, signalling that the state now treats paper leaks as an offence requiring expedited criminal justice response rather than routine trial timelines.
Right to Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment (Article 16) and Examination Integrity
Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, while Article 14 guarantees equality before law. Paper leaks and organised examination fraud directly undermine these guarantees by giving an unfair advantage to a section of candidates, defeating merit-based selection that Articles 14 and 16 are designed to protect.
Key Details
- Article 21A (inserted by the 86th Amendment, 2002) makes free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6-14, reinforcing the state's interest in the integrity of the education and examination ecosystem that follows.
- Recruitment to public services is also governed by Article 309 (rules for state and Union services) and overseen by bodies like the UPSC (Article 315) and SSC.
The steeper penalties proposed by the Bill are framed as a deterrence mechanism to protect the constitutional promise of equal opportunity in public employment from being eroded by organised cheating networks.
- Parent Act: Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.
- Amendment Bill, 2026: individual offences — imprisonment 5-10 years (up from 3-5 years); fine up to ₹50 lakh (up from ₹10 lakh).
- Organised offences: minimum imprisonment of 7 years; fine up to ₹10 crore.
- Investigation timeline mandated: 2 months, overseen by a Special Task Force (STF).
- Mechanism proposed: fast-track courts in every state for speedy trial.
- Fast-track courts originally recommended by the 11th Finance Commission (2000); 1,734 courts sanctioned with an allocation of about ₹502.90 crore.
- Offences under the parent 2024 Act are cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.