Public Examinations (Prevention Of Unfair Means) Act 2024 notified
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Government Policies and Interventions
Source: TH
Context: The Union government has implemented the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024, effective from June 21, to curb malpractices and organised cheating in government recruitment exams.
Need for the Bill:
The act is introduced against the backdrop of widespread exam cancellations (including the recent NEET and NET exams controversy) due to paper leaks in various competitive tests across states like Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Bihar. Over 1.5 crore students have been affected by paper leaks from 2016 to 2023, with more than 70 cases reported during this period. Despite these incidents, there is currently no specific law to address unfair practices in public examinations conducted by the central government and its agencies.
Key Highlights of the Public Examinations Act:
Highlights | Description
Objective | Enhance transparency, fairness, and credibility in public exams.
Reassure youth of fair rewards for sincere efforts.
It will supplement the other initiatives government in this direction such as introducing self-attestation; shortening the examination cycle (from 18-22 months to 6-10 months), etc.
Applicability | Covers central recruitment and entrance exams conducted by UPSC, SSC, RRBs, IBPS, and NTA.
All central ministries, departments, and recruitment offices are included.
Definition of Public examination | Section 2(k) of the Act defines a public examination as any exam conducted by a public examination authority listed in the Act’s Schedule or designated by the Central Government through notification.
Exclusion of Students | Candidates are not targeted by the bill.
Students are covered under existing administrative provisions of exam authorities.
Punishments | Prison terms of 3-5 years for paper leak involvement.
Up to 10 years if linked to organised crime.
A fine of Rs 1 crore; exam organising firms may be barred from conducting exams.
Unfair Means Defined | Section 3 lists 20 offences, including impersonation, tampering, Leakage of question papers or answer keys, Unauthorized access to question papers or Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) response sheets, Creating fake websites, etc.
Nature of Offences | Cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.
Cognizable: Offenses for which police can make an arrest without a warrant
Non-bailable: Offenses for which bail is not guaranteed and must be determined by a magistrate
Non-compoundable: Offenses that cannot be settled out of court, requiring a trial to proceed regardless of any agreement between parties involved
Investigation | Led by officers of rank, not below Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police.
States have the option to send a probe to a Central agency.
National Technical Committee | NTC was formed to enhance security in computerized exams.
It will develop protocols for IT security and surveillance.
Model Draft for States | The act is binding for central authorities and; a model for states.
Concerns with the Bill:
• State Government Discretion: The bill’s reliance on state governments to draft their own acts may lead to partisan interests, as seen in past model bills.
• Exploitable Loopholes: Excluding students from criminal sanctions may allow paper leak gangs to pose as students to evade punishment.
• Lack of Committee Composition: The absence of clarity on the composition and qualifications of the National Technical Committee on Public Exams raises concerns about potential partisanship.
• Subordinate Legislation Scope: The bill’s allowance for subordinate legislation grants executive authorities extensive discretionary power in implementation.
Reasons for cheating in exams include a positive attitude towards cheating, societal pressures prioritizing marks over integrity in learning, frustration with delayed justice in the judicial system, and students’ overambition and pursuit of self-interest to gain unfair advantages.
Ethical issues related to cheating in exams include:
• Violation of academic integrity: Cheating undermines the principles of honesty, fairness, and trustworthiness in academic settings, compromising the integrity of educational institutions.
• Unfair advantage: Cheating gives dishonest individuals an unfair advantage over their peers who choose to abide by the rules, distorting competition and merit-based evaluations.
• Deception and dishonesty: Cheating involves deception and dishonesty, as individuals misrepresent their knowledge, skills, or abilities to achieve undeserved academic outcomes.
• Lack of personal accountability: Cheating reflects a lack of personal accountability and responsibility for one’s actions, as individuals prioritize short-term gains over long-term integrity and character development.
• Diminished learning and skill development: Cheating inhibits genuine learning and skill development by promoting shortcuts and rote memorization instead of critical thinking, problem-solving, and mastery of academic content.
• Damage to reputation: Cheating tarnishes the reputation of individuals and institutions involved, eroding trust and credibility within academic communities and beyond.
• Ethical erosion: Engaging in cheating can lead to a slippery slope of ethical erosion, where individuals become desensitized to dishonest behaviour and compromise their ethical standards in other areas of life.
Conclusion:
The bipartisan support of the bill underscores the seriousness of the issue and the government’s commitment to ensuring transparency and fairness in examinations. The bill’s focus on strict punishments for offenders and technological solutions signifies a step towards protecting the integrity of examination systems.
Mains Links:
In India, why do you think there are so many instances of paper leaks for competitive exams and government posts? Elaborate on the moral hazards of the same.