STF probe, harsher punishment and fast-track courts: Government's proposed changes to anti-paper leak law

The Union Cabinet has approved a bill to amend the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 to introduce tougher punishment for those found guilty of question paper leaks in the country.

The proposed changes come as the government faces nationwide protests over widespread issues in the education system, particularly recurring question paper leaks in competitive exams like the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to medical courses.

In 2024, the government had introduced the law "to prevent unfair means in the public examinations and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

Its objective was to bring greater transparency, fairness and credibility to the public examination systems and to reassure the youth that their sincere and genuine efforts will be fairly rewarded.

The Act criminalises several unfair activities in public exams such as leaking question papers, tampering with answer sheets, manipulating seating arrangements, creating fake websites to cheat for monetary gain and conducting fake exams.

On Friday, the Union Cabinet approved amendments to the 2024 anti-paper leak law. A day later, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned after weeks of student demonstrations demanding his removal.

The bill amending the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, is likely to be tabled before the parliament this monsoon session.

Below are the major amendments proposed by the bill:

Punishments

The bill proposes a minimum of five years and a maximum of ten years in jail for any person or persons resorting to unfair means or other offences mentioned under the Act.

The punishment currently is three years to five years. Similarly, the government proposes to increase the fine from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh.

The bill also proposes to raise the fine from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore for the service provider conducting the public examination in case they are found responsible for any unfair means or paper leakage. They would also barred from conducting any examination for a period of eight years instead of four years when the bill becomes a law.

The persons in-charge of such service provider firms can be sentenced to a minimum of five years' imprisonment under the proposed law. Earlier, the minimum imprisonment of three years was prescribed. The fine for them will also go up from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore.

The bill also proposes to enhance the jail term for persons found guilty of organised crimes. At present, they can be sentenced to a minimum term of five years and a maximum term of ten years with fine not less than ₹1 crore. It has been proposed that the minimum sentence be raised to seven years and the fine be set at ₹10 crores.

Investigations

The bill also proposes to empower the Central government to constitute a Special Task Force (STF) for investigation of offences under the Act. In a new provision, the bill sets timelines for completion of investigation and trial in the case.

An officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Investigating Agency and STF would be required to complete investigations entrusted to them within two months.

Trial and appeal

The trial of the offences committed under the Act would be held on a day-to-day basis by a sessions court designated as a special fast track court, as per the proposed law. The trial would have to be completed within three months once the amended provisions come into force.

The State governments and Union Territory administrations will have to appoint or more special public prosecutors for these special courts for conducting these cases.

With regard to appeals challenging any judgment, sentence or order of the fast track court, the bill states that they would be heard by a division bench of the High Court and must be disposed of within three months, as far as possible.

An appeal challenging any order will have to filed within 30 days. However, the High Court can condone a delay in case sufficient cause is shown but no appeal can be entertained after expiry of 90 days.