India, July 28 -- It is both timely and politically significant that the incumbent government at the centre has decided to amend the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act via the Amendment Bill 2026 - coming in the wake of the cancellation of NEET 2026 due to paper leakage allegations, the Bill underscores the government's determination to instill confidence in the examination system of the country. This is considered an important process which affects the career prospects of millions of Indians annually. Through the proposed amendment, the message has been sent that examination misconduct can no longer be seen as an isolated act but must be viewed as an organised crime. By imposing stringent punishments and penalties, the new Bill will dismantle the complex network of people who have exploited technological glitches.
The emphasis on speed is yet another positive aspect of the Bill. The Bill ensures investigations within two months, daily hearings of cases in Special Fast Track Courts, and the disposal of trials and appeals within stipulated time periods. In essence, this takes care of one of the most critical weaknesses in India's criminal justice system - delay in delivering justice. For students whose prospects have been compromised due to paper leaks, long-drawn legal proceedings would only further exacerbate their situation. Rapid disposal of cases would work as a deterrent to those tempted to commit acts of cheating.
What is even more positive is the acknowledgement that examination malpractice has become an organised form of crime. The penalty of up to Rs 10 crore for organised crime syndicates is indicative of the nature of the economy of crime behind recruitment examinations. The amendment, if properly enforced, can help curb the business of cheating and make recruitment organisations such as UPSC, SSC, Railway Recruitment Board and National Testing Agency credible in the eyes of candidates. However, the legislators raise questions over constitutional and practical issues which the proposed law throws up. The emphasis by the Bill on conducting trials within three months, though commendable in intention, will not quite fit in well with the practicalities of criminal justice dispensation. There have been observations by the Supreme Court earlier that Parliament shouldn't have fixed outer limits to criminal proceedings, considering that the courts were not obliged to complete criminal trials within a certain time frame.
Another issue of concern would arise in connection with the provision of limiting appeals beyond ninety days. While the intention behind it might be to end litigation in perpetuity, it has been the experience of the High Courts in the country that there is divergence in their opinions as to whether there must be a mandatory time limit if personal liberty issues arise. In fact, the Supreme Court in an interim order in a provision of the National Investigation Agency Act has suggested that late appeal petitions should not be summarily dismissed. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in terms of the legislative intent and the capacity of institutions.
Even though the Bill prescribes that the investigation must be completed within two months, it fails to mention what measures will be adopted in case there is a delay. It is true that statutes that prescribe time-bound investigations oblige investigating officers to mention reasons for any delay. Firstly, the problem of speedier justice is not just about the statutory deadlines but also about the required judicial framework. The example of the Fast Track Special Courts set up under the POCSO Act can be taken in this regard. Even though there are special courts set up for POCSO Act violations, they have been unable to dispose of more than two lakh cases due to the shortage of manpower, which includes judges, prosecution staff, court staff and investigators.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.