Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026: Analysis
I have just no hesitation at all in conceding openly that I am not at all happy even mildly with this new Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 that had been introduced in Lok Sabha on 27 July by Union Minister Jitendra Singh has been passed by the Lok Sabha on July 29, 2026.
This new Bill that aims for stricter punishment and time bound trials for people accused of exam paper leaks overhauls the original legislation of 2024 that was passed in a voice vote after a 10-hour long debate that witnessed protests, adjournments and a war of words between the ruling and opposition leaders amid sloganeering by the Opposition.
The only saving grace is that it is stipulated in the new bill that the investigation must be completed within 2 months of the center's reference.
It must be mentioned here that the new Bill draft legislation identifies 15 offences pertaining to unfair means in public examinations which include leaking question papers, tampering with OMR sheets, creating fake examination websites, issuing fake Admit Cards and other acts intended to compromise the integrity of public examinations.
Key Features of the Amendment Bill, 2026
| Feature | Provision |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Stricter punishment for exam-related offenses and time-bound trials. |
| Investigation | Must be completed within 2 months of the center's reference. |
| Offenses Covered | 15 offenses, including paper leaks, OMR tampering, fake examination websites, fake admit cards, and other unfair means. |
| Trial Process | Special task force, fast-track investigation, and daily court proceedings. |
Amit Shah's Response to the Bill
It must be mentioned here that Union Home Minister Amit Shah in a post on X congratulated “every student in India” on the passage of the Bill saying it “shields the dreams and aspirations of our youth by laying down iron-clad provisions imposing the harshest punishment on those who dare to breach the sanctity of public examinations.”
Amit Shah also said that "the Modi government will spare no one who attempts to imperil the future of our students and will leave no stone unturned to ensure that they face the full wrath of the law.”
It certainly merits just no reiteration that the punishment that has been provided even in the new bill is definitely not the harshest punishment!
Why the Punishment Is Still Not Harsh Enough
I am sorry to say but just 5-10 years of punishment is also just no strict punishment at all for such heinous offences adversely affecting the lives of millions of students all across India many of whom even commit suicide as they feel that they have been cheated and their hard work has been burnt alive.
Earlier the jail term for unfair means and offenses was merely three to five years, and the fine was merely Rs 10 lakh!
Why no mandatory death or even mandatory life term for such culprits who pay havoc with the lives of innocent youths, most mercilessly putting their precious lives at ransom only to be let off after a few years in jail?
Why do we hear so many brilliant students committing suicide due to not qualifying in an exam that is tainted by corruption scandals?
Major Concerns Raised
- Only 5-10 years' imprisonment for serious examination offenses.
- Millions of deserving students are adversely affected.
- Students allegedly lose faith in the fairness of examinations.
- Many students reportedly suffer severe mental distress.
- The punishment is viewed as inadequate considering the consequences.
Concerns Over Fines and Debarment
It is because of massive corruption and paper leaks that such brilliant students feel most depressed with many even taking their own lives as they feel that their relentless hard work has all gone wasted!
Why is it fine only up to Rs 50 lakh for anyone resorting to “unfair means and offenses"?
Why not in crores?
It is fair that maximum fine for service providers is upto Rs 5 crore and Rs 10 crore fine for organised crime and earlier it was just one crore and but why only 8 years debarment period for service providers now and earlier was just four years and why not for life or at least 20 or 25 years?
| Issue | Observation |
|---|---|
| Fine for Individuals | Up to Rs 50 lakh. |
| Fine for Service Providers | Up to Rs 5 crore. |
| Fine for Organized Crime | Up to Rs 10 crore. |
| Debarment Period | 8 years (earlier 4 years). |
Broader Concerns About Corruption
Why do we see leniency in punishment for corruption?
Why do we see no mandatory death or mandatory life term even for corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and punishment was raised slightly, but that is just not enough, as we see in this new bill also?
This tolerance for corruption has to end completely because it is spreading very fast in all walks of life and even roads break up just after few days of inauguration despite spending crores of rupees on it as we saw recently when Rs 16 crore bridge at Nandi ki Chowki collapsed within 17 days that disconnected the bridge from the Dehradun-Paonta Sahib highway.
Just lip service on imposing the harshest punishment will not suffice!
It has to turn into ground reality and ground service!
Provisions for Speedy Investigation and Trial
It is, however, good to see that the bill allows for the formation of a special task force, a time-bound probe, and daily proceedings during trial.
It is reassuring to see that fast-track courts set up for this purpose are mandated to finish trials within three months from the filing of the chargesheet.
The proposed bill inserts two new sections—12A and 12B—for speedy probe and trials.
The current law stipulated investigation by federal agencies.
But we see that in the new bill the government has been allowed to set up a special task force for the same purpose.
The new sections say commendably that a central investigating agency or special investigation team shall complete the probe “within a period of two months from the date of a reference made to it by the central government.”
Time-Bound Procedure Under the Bill
| Stage | Timeline |
|---|---|
| Investigation | Within 2 months of the Central Government reference. |
| Trial | Within 3 months from the filing of the chargesheet. |
| Court Proceedings | Daily proceedings before Fast Track Courts. |
Comparison with Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Laws
It would be instructive to note that under the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 that was enacted in July 2024 mandates life imprisonment and property seizure and fine up to Rs 10 crore for leaks and syndicates and 2 years to life in jail for unfair means and Rs 1 crore fine.
Even in Uttarakhand there is a life-term jail provision.
But in the much-hyped new bill, we see no life term in jail and no property seizure, which must be done immediately, as we see in the case of a law made in UP!
No denying or disputing it!
Comparison of Penalties
| Law | Major Punishment |
|---|---|
| Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 | 5-10 years imprisonment, enhanced fines, and time-bound investigation and trial. |
| Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 | Life imprisonment, property seizure, and a fine up to Rs 10 crore. |
| Uttarakhand Law | Provision for life imprisonment. |
Fast-Track Courts, Appeals, and the Need for Stricter Paper Leak Laws
Eminent writer and author Chetan Bhagat very rightly pointed out that, "I am pained to see visuals of violent attacks against young peaceful protesters, who have genuine valid concerns. The education system, particularly the testing system, is broken. Come down heavily on fixing that, not on the protesters. Even if some opposition parties and even some of the usual permanent celebrity activists are jumping on the political opportunity, it doesn’t take away the fact that Gen-Z issues are real. It’s their future at stake. The anger is real. No conspiracy theory changes that.”
Special Fast-Track Courts for Speedy Trials
While making specific provisions for the fast track courts, the Bill notably stated that, “For the purposes of providing a speedy trial on day-to-day basis, every state government and Union Territory administration shall in consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, by notification, designate a court of session, to be a special fast track court to try offences under this act.” It also mercifully imposes strict timelines for trial.
It is stipulated in the provisions of the new legislation that, “In every trial of an offence under this Act, the proceedings shall be continued on a day-to-day basis, until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the special fast track court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, finds that adjournment of the same beyond the following day is necessary: Provided that such trial shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the chargesheet.”
Key Provisions on Fast-Track Trials
| Provision | Details |
|---|---|
| Designation of Court | State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, shall designate a Court of Session as a Special Fast Track Court. |
| Trial Procedure | Proceedings shall continue on a day-to-day basis. |
| Adjournments | Permitted only when recorded in writing with valid reasons. |
| Trial Timeline | The trial shall be completed within three months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. |
Appeal Provisions Under the Bill
It is also stipulated in the new bill that an “appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence, or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a special fast-track court to the High Court.” It is also added that "Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a bench of two judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.” It would have been better if the bench was of five or four or at least three judges of the High Court!
Appeal Framework
| Aspect | Provision |
|---|---|
| Appealable Orders | Judgment, sentence, or order (excluding interlocutory orders). |
| Appellate Court | High Court. |
| Bench Strength | Two Judges. |
| Disposal Timeline | Preferably within three months from admission. |
Restrictions on Appeals and Bail Orders
We see that it is also envisaged in the new Bill that, “Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a special fast track court” and “an appeal shall lie to the high court against an order of the special fast track court granting or refusing bail.” It also merits noting that the bill also tightened provisions for appeals.
It postulates that, “Every appeal under this Section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of ninety days.”
Appeal Time Limits
- An appeal should ordinarily be filed within 30 days.
- The High Court may condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.
- No appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of 90 days.
- An appeal is specifically maintainable against orders granting or refusing bail.
Conclusion: Need for Stricter Paper Leak Laws
In conclusion, the Centre must pay heed to what eminent actor Ravi Kishan of Hindi cinema said so very commendably: “The 22 lakh children who gave the exam and those who lost their lives—it is very sad. I stand with the future of these children. I see their pain. If the Opposition is ready for dialogue, everyone should make such a strict law that no one dares to leak papers in the future. There should be life imprisonment because you are playing with the lives of many families. Such a law can be made if there is a debate in Parliament.”
But it is most disgusting to see that we witness more personal attacks and less focus on imposing mandatory death or even mandatory life terms for those who are involved in paper leaks! This must change now if the future of youth has to be made bright and those who work hard honestly don’t feel cheated and left out because of not being able to bribe away the perpetrators of the paper leaks for whom there has to be zero tolerance for which just 10 years jail won’t suffice at all nor just barring them for few years suffice!
One still fervently hopes that the opposition will focus on this most vital aspect and not just keep deriding a few individuals or organizations, which serve just no purpose at all! No denying!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col. (Retd.) BPS Sirohi, A-82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
