Rajya Sabha Clears Public Examinations (Amendment) Bill: Stricter Penalties for Exam Fraud

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) (Amendment) Bill, 2026 is an ordinary bill, so it must be passed by a simple majority of members present and voting in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha before being presented to the President for assent under Article 111. Unlike a Money Bill under Article 110, an ordinary bill gives the Rajya Sabha co-equal power — it can amend or reject the bill, and if the two Houses disagree, Article 108 provides for a joint sitting to resolve the deadlock.

Key Details

• Ordinary bills may originate in either House (Article 107), unlike Money Bills, which must originate only in the Lok Sabha (Article 109).
• Passage requires only a simple majority (more than 50% of members present and voting), as opposed to the special majority required for constitutional amendment bills under Article 368.
• After passage by both Houses, the President may assent, withhold assent, or (for non-Money Bills) return the bill for reconsideration under Article 111; a bill passed again by Parliament after such return must be assented to.
• This amendment follows the same passage route as the original 2024 Act, since both are ordinary legislation on a subject falling within Parliament's competence (public examinations conducted by central recruitment bodies).

The 2024 Act was India's first dedicated central law criminalising malpractice in public examinations conducted by central recruitment and testing bodies, enacted in response to a wave of paper-leak controversies affecting recruitment exams. It defines "unfair means" broadly and applies to examinations conducted by bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards, banking recruitment bodies, and the National Testing Agency (NTA).

The amendment steeply raises both custodial and monetary penalties across all categories of offenders under the 2024 Act, and adds a dedicated fast-track judicial mechanism, reflecting a policy shift toward stronger deterrence and swifter prosecution following recurring paper-leak incidents in competitive examinations.