In May 2026, over two million candidates appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) (NEET-UG), reflecting years of preparation and emotional investment by students and their families. Within 10 days of the examination, the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts NEET-UG, CUET, JEE Main and other competitive examinations, in India, decided to cancel the examination after evidence emerged of a paper leak. This controversy is not novel and raises concerns about the credibility of the examination system. More than 70–80 paper leak incidents have been reported across India over the last decade, putting crores of candidates’ future in jeopardy.

Previously, incidents of paper leaks and examination malpractices were addressed under general criminal law, primarily the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Offences such as cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust were invoked based on the facts. Given the complexity of such offences, provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were also used in cases involving digital access and officials’ misconduct. However, the absence of a specialized statutory framework created enforcement hurdles and failed to capture the organized nature of exam-related crime. As digital exam systems became common and leaks shifted online, law enforcement struggled to trace cybercrimes because of limited digital forensic capacity, jurisdictional challenges, and issues with the admissibility of evidence. Although arrests were often made, convictions were rare because of delays, insufficient evidence, poor coordination, low deterrence, interference by powerful individuals, and threats to whistleblowers and investigators. Overall, this legal gap led to widespread examination irregularities and loss of public trust.

This gap was addressed through the enactment of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (hereinafter ‘Act’), a central law, to prevent unfair means in examinations. Widely regarded as the first-of-its-kind, it codifies malpractice offences in public examinations. Several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, and Rajasthan, have enacted laws against unfair means and paper leaks. However, repeated leaks exposed the limits of fragmented state measures and strengthened the case for a uniform national framework. The wide scope of the Act allows other examination-conducting agencies to be included through Central Government notifications.

The Act gives an inclusive explanation of “unfair means,” covering not only direct acts of question paper leakage but also possession, circulation, or facilitation of leaked content. This broad construction reflects legislative intent to capture direct misconduct as well as ancillary and facilitative conduct enabling examination fraud. Examination malpractice is often not an isolated act rather a system-driven process involving multiple stakeholders. Considering the institutional and organized nature of examination fraud, the Act frames a wide scope of criminal liability. Liability is not restricted to individual candidates but also includes service providers, examination officials, printing agencies, logistics operations, and other entities involved in public examinations. It criminalizes collusion and conspiracy facilitating unfair means and targets conduct that disrupts the orderly administration of public examinations. Moreover, the law places affirmative obligations on service providers to promptly report offences to concerned authorities and reinforces institutional safeguards by restricting examinations to authorized centres, thereby minimizing systemic vulnerabilities and preserving the sanctity of public examinations.

Offences are classified as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, indicating their severity. The framework extends liability beyond offenders to companies, institutions, and service providers for negligence, connivance, or lack of due diligence while covering facilitation, abetment, and preparatory conduct. Persons resorting to unfair means may face imprisonment from three to five years with fines up to Rs 10 lakhs. Service providers may face fines up to Rs 1 crore, recovery of examination costs, debarment, and, in cases of organized or institutional collusion, ten years’ imprisonment, attachment, and forfeiture of property.

The experiences of states, with stringent penalties show that anti-paper leak laws alone do not guarantee examination integrity. Although these laws criminalize unfair means, including impersonation and unauthorized possession or disclosure of question papers, repeated leaking incidents and cancelled examinations reveal persistent enforcement gaps.  

The Act was framed as a significant step toward regulating unfair means in public examinations. However, issues such as the timely rescheduling of cancelled examinations, inadequate capacity building of examination officials, limited integration of advanced technology, and the absence of a specialized investigative framework remain overlooked. These gaps suggest that the framework is largely punitive, with less emphasis on administrative preparedness and systemic reform. 

As the law is in its nascent stages, the effects of successful prosecution and conviction are yet to be tested. Nevertheless, the continued occurrence of major examination leaks and large-scale scandals does not augur well for practical effectiveness of the law. Incidents such as the UGC-NET 2024 leak, the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination 2024 paper leak, the NEET-UG controversy, and recurring allegations have exposed persistent vulnerabilities in the examination system. 

A common pattern is that examinations are cancelled, matters are transferred to the CBI or a Special Investigation Team, committees are constituted, and inquiries are initiated. However, once immediate public outrage subsides, the focus often shifts from addressing the deeper structural failures that enabled the leak. These incidents have affected crores of candidates and necessitated the cancellation, re-examination, or investigation of the examinations. 

Therefore, the law appears to function more as a post-facto corrective mechanism than as a complete deterrent to organized examination fraud. This suggests that legislation must be supported by effective enforcement, institutional accountability, and secure examination systems, not merely penal provisions. Critics argue that repeated irregularities expose governance failures, while accountability remains confined to inquiries, committees and investigative proceedings. The government’s proposal to use IAF planes for delivering NEET-UG retest question papers or to impose a temporary ban on the Telegram app prior to the exam might not serve as a sustainable solution. Enhanced technological surveillance, improved collaboration with service providers, and proactive intelligence-driven oversight of examination procedures could have led to more effective results.

(The author acknowledges the research contributions made by Vineet, under-graduate student of MNLU, Nagpur)

END OF ARTICLE