Public examinations are critical for determining the academic and professional
trajectories of millions of students. Ensuring their integrity is paramount to
maintain trust in the education system. The Public Examinations (Prevention of
Unfair Means) Act, 2024, represents a comprehensive legal framework aimed at
addressing examination malpractices. This research paper explores the Act's
provisions, historical context, case studies of examination leaks, and the
impact of the Act post-implementation. By delving into these aspects, the paper
seeks to provide a holistic understanding of the necessity, effectiveness, and
future implications of the Act.
Introduction
On 21st June Union government announced the enforcement of the Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means ) Act, 2024 by releasing a statement:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the
Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (1 of 2024), the
Central Government hereby appoints the 21st day of June 2024, as the date on
which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force." This act was passed
by Parliament on 9th of February and got presidential assent on the 12th of
February 2024.
Many questions are roaming around regarding the inexplicable
delay in the enforcement of the said act. It was enacted amid the widespread
tension among candidates regarding frequent leaks of public examinations. The
recent NEET-UG 2024 exam paper leak creates chaos among candidates who have been
preparing hard for the exam for the last 2-3 years. The recent UGC-NET exam was
also cancelled by NTA saying that the integrity of the exam was compromised.
Enforcement of the act after leaks of two of the biggest exams of the country
gave rise to questions regarding the reason behind the delay. Act was passed to
prevent unfair means but what matters if the act has been passed after unfair
means have already been practiced. An Act that is passed by Parliament can be on
such that the government will retain it and decide on another date to bring it
to the notice of Parliament. If an Act does not contain such a provision, the
Act obtains legal force as soon as it receives the President's signature.
It is
also important to note at some times, the Act will also provide for the coming
into operation of the Act to be on a date specified by the Act. Parliament authorises this power to the government so that the government can put
appropriate measures structures and institutions in place to implement the Act.
Therefore, Section 1 (2) of The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means)
Act, 2024 also confirms that it will be effective from such date as the central
government may specify by notification in the official gazette. The government
also did this by fixing 21 June as a date when various provisions of the Act
shall take effect.
According to section 16(1) of the Act, the Centre has to make rules which have
to be notified in the official gazette for the implementation of the provisions
of the Act. Section 16(2) provides that such rules may contain provisions of how
and in what manner public examinations may be conducted, as well as any other
matter touching on the examinations that may be prescribed. Section 17 provides
that each rule made under the Act is to be laid before each house of parliament
while it is sitting for a total of 30 sitting days to be approved.
The delay in
notifying the Act would have been justified if the government had framed Rules
in the period intervening between the passing of the Act and notification. Since
the general election to Parliament hindered the formation of mechanisms and
setting of Rules, there was no need to notify the Act on June 21. It could have
waited for the laying of Rules in the next parliamentary session if it had
anticipated the move of the other House. Without such Rules in the Act, several
provisions of the Act would be of little application in the country.
Key provisions
Purpose of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024 was
passed to enhance public examination credibility. It restricts the leakage of
information, which is related to a particular examination, prior to the
stipulated time and the access of any unauthorized persons into the examination
halls. The Act aims at combating cheating in public examinations.
Public
examination is defined under section 2(k) of the act, a Public Examination is
defined as any examination conducted by a "public examination authority" listed
in the Schedule of the Bill, or any such other authority as may be notified by
the Central Government. The schedule lists five public examination authorities,
the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the Staff Selection Commission (SSC),
the Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), the Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection (IBPS), the National Testing Agency (NTA).
Section 3 of the Act defines at least 15 actions as "unfair means" which
include: These are (i) theft of examination materials or their leakage to the
candidates, (ii) cheating or assisting the candidates in any way, (iii)
corrupting computer setup or resources, (iv) foul play in the process of
shortlisting or ranking of the candidates, and lastly, (v) conducting fraudulent
exams and issuing fake admit cards or offer letters for financial gain, (vi)
tampering with answer sheets or examination records
The Act has not given a precise meaning to 'service provider' but this term
refers to an agency, an organisation, a body, association, business entity,
company, partnership or any other organisation, including its affiliates and sub
contractors who are hired by the public examination authority to conduct public
examinations. If an examination authority or service provider commits an
organized crime, then the jail term of minimum imprisonment will be of five
years whereas the imprisonment may extend up to ten years, and the fine will
remain ₹ 1 crore as per Section 30 J. The Act has also referred to the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita where a note has been placed that the provisions of the Indian
Penal Code shall continue to apply until the application of new laws.
Punishments:
Section 9 of the act defines the nature of the offense as cognizable,
non-bailable, and non-compoundable.
- This means police can start their investigation without seeking permission from the magistrate
- Arrest can be made without any warrant and bail would be granted on the discretion of the magistrate not as a right
- Non-compoundable means the case cannot be withdrawn from any party even if parties are ready to compromise.
Punishment for “any person or persons resorting to unfair means and offenses” can be three to five years in prison, and a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh.
If the convict fails to pay the fine, “an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed, as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
Punishment for the Service Providers:
- A service provider, engaged by the public examination authority for the conduct of examinations, shall also be liable to be punished with the imposition of a fine up to Rs 1 crore and proportionate cost of examination shall also be recovered from it, if the service provider is involved in illegal practices.
Historical Context of Examination Malpractices in India
Examination malpractices in India is not new, characterized by numerous
high-profile incidents that have exposed the vulnerabilities and loopholes in
the system. These malpractices range from leakage of question papers to
impersonation and bribery, affecting the integrity of examinations at various
levels.
CBSE Paper Leak (2018)
CBSE paper leak in the year 2018 was one of the biggest examination scandals
that was reported in recent years. The Mathematics paper of Class 10 and the
Economics paper of Class 12 were leaked at the social networking sites before
the actual dates of examinations and it caused troubles for more than two
millions of students. This fuelled the already aggrieved students, parents, and
educators into calling for strict & appropriate measures to be taken in order to
ensure the prevention of such occurrences in the future.
Police introduced the
CBI in the case to investigate the leakage, and based on the leakage that
unfolded through the pages, another network that circulated the papers through
the Use of the WhatsApp group was unveiled. It was an eye-opener in the aspect
of security in the examination process, as well as the laxity in penalties meted
on those involved in fraudulent activities concerning examinations.
Vyapam Scam (2013)
The case of Madhya Pradesh Vyapam exam fraud was one of the largest and complex
scandals in the examinations in India. It was a major aftermath relating to
cheating in the entrance examinations for the medical and various other
professional courses conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination
Board (MPPEB). Some of the practices adopted included impersonation, offering of
gifts to some people and altering records. More than 2000 people including
politicians, civil servants, and touts have been accused in the scam. That is
why the Supreme Court of India launched a CBI investigation, as a result of
which many arrests and trials were carried out. The Vyapam scam painted the
examination system a massively corrupt entity in need of major overhauls to
purge the vices.
Statistical Overview
Statistically, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) revealed that there are
about 2,000 cases of examination malpractices recorded in the year 2018 only.
Such cases as cases of leakage of examination papers, impersonation and other
instances of administrative malfeasance regarding the administration of the
examinations. The estimated actual number of malpractices is even greater since
many do not come to the attention of the institutions' authorities. These
malpractices have severe financial and psychological tolls on the students, and
the whole of the education system requires stronger measures to deal with them.
Challenges And Recommendations
Challenges:
- Implementation Across Diverse Regions: A major challenge is to achieve compliance with the Act across various geographical and administrative areas of the country. The scale, availability, and capacity of resources, infrastructures, and officials as well as coordination among them may impact the measures required by the Act.
- Technological Infrastructure: Paying for the required technological needs including the creation of an examination system that can only be compromised with significant difficulty can be relatively expensive. As for the role of security, it must be said that smaller examining bodies and institutions can experience difficulties in implementing such enhanced registration and verification methods as biometrics and central controls.
- Resistance to Change: This might due to the fact that the stakeholders involved in the examination activities may not accept change brought by the Act from the traditional examination practices. This can hamper the effectiveness of the above measures and translate to the Act's performance levels on the low end.
Recommendations:
- Capacity Building: Academic education oriented in the training and capacity builds of examination officials and service providers are useful in a smooth implementation of the Act. Such programs may target at being an improvement on the technical and administrative matters of the implementation of the Act so that officials have adequate knowledge regarding the new measures.
- Public Awareness: This basically means that with awareness campaigns such as the one on fair examinations, the public can be counted on to support, and even obey. Such campaigns can highlight on the need and importance of the Act to ensure that it is implemented among the stakeholders.
- Continuous Monitoring: Audits can be conducted at various intervals as well as constant supervision of examination processes might be useful in regard to realization of the possible problems. Such check-ins can help the organs of state power to track the degree of the act's implementation and adherence to constantly update and reinforce them.
Conclusion
They called the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 a
great stride towards the fight against unfair means in public examination in
India. Thus, by eliminating the sources of examination malpractice and putting
in place sound preventive measures, the Act serves to rebuild people's
confidence in examinations. However, it should be noted that to achieve them,
involvement, coordination, evaluation, and sustenance initiatives must be
collective engagement from all concerned parties and value systems to practice
and keep up a high standard of fairness and transparency.
The provisions of the Act are extensive while the penalties for offenders are
severe, this coupled with the security measures that had to be embraced has in
one way or the other helped to bring down incidences of examination
malpractices. With the enhanced responsibility and order between the examination
organizations and police stations, it has facilitated efficient investigation
and prosecution of the offenses. Still, the Act's potential for changing the
nature of examinations is clear, despite the issues that still persist. If these
difficulties and others is overcome and if there is constant enhancement of the
act's implementation in India, the public examination can be conducted honestly.
References:
- Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. [PDF document].
- National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report, 2018.
- Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Paper Leak, 2018.
- Vyapam Scam, Madhya Pradesh, 2013.
- National Testing Agency (NTA) Reports on JEE and NEET Examinations.
Please Drop Your Comments