On 24 July 2026, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha, proposing stricter penalties, time-bound investigations and dedicated Fast-Track Courts for examination-related offences.
Background:
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was enacted to curb the use of unfair means in public examinations and to promote transparency, fairness and credibility in the examination system.
In recent years, incidents of question paper leaks and examination malpractices, including the controversy relating to the NEET examination, have raised serious concerns regarding the integrity, transparency and credibility of public examinations.
Also Read: NEET 2026 Paper Leak Controversy: What Happened, Why It Matters, and What Must Change
In response, the Government has introduced the Bill with the objective of ensuring speedy investigation and trial of offences, strengthening deterrence against organised examination-related crimes, and enabling stricter action against individuals, institutions and networks involved in paper leaks and other unfair means.
The proposed amendments seek to enhance the fairness, transparency and credibility of public examinations through time-bound investigations, Special Fast-Track Courts, Special Task Forces for investigation of offences, enhanced terms of imprisonment and substantially higher monetary penalties for examination-related offences.
Key Highlights of Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026:
-
The Bill aims to amend the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.
-
The Bill proposes to enhance punishment under Section 10 (1) from imprisonment of three to five years to imprisonment of five to ten years.
-
The maximum fine for such offences is proposed to be increased from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh.
-
The fine imposable on service providers under Section 10(2) is proposed to be increased from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore.
-
The period during which a defaulting service provider can be barred from participating in public examinations is proposed to be increased from four years to eight years.
-
For directors, senior management personnel and persons in charge of service provider firms involved in offences, the minimum imprisonment is proposed to be increased from three years to five years.
-
The fine for such persons is proposed to be increased from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore.
-
For organised crimes under Section 11, the minimum imprisonment is proposed to be enhanced from five years to seven years.
-
The minimum fine for organised crimes is proposed to be increased from ₹1 crore to ₹10 crore.
-
The Bill proposes to empower the Central Government to constitute a Special Task Force for investigation of offences under the Act.
-
Where a Special Task Force is constituted, the investigation would be carried out only by that Special Task Force.
-
A new Section 12A mandates completion of investigations within two months, whether conducted by police authorities, a Central Investigating Agency or a Special Task Force.
-
Every State Government and Union Territory Administration would be required, in consultation with the concerned High Court Chief Justice, to designate a Court of Session as a Special Fast-Track Court for offences under the Act.
-
The Special Fast-Track Courts would also try connected offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other applicable laws in the same trial.
-
Trials are proposed to be conducted on a day-to-day basis unless adjournment is specifically justified in writing.
-
The Bill proposes that trials be completed within three months from the filing of the chargesheet.
-
All pending cases under the Act would stand transferred to the designated Special Fast-Track Courts upon commencement of the amendment legislation.
-
Transferred cases would be required to be concluded within three months of their receipt by the Special Fast-Track Court.
-
Every State Government and Union Territory Administration would be required to appoint one or more Special Public Prosecutors for conduct of cases under the Act.
-
The Bill proposes to insert a new Section 12B, under which appeals against judgments, sentences or orders passed by Special Fast-Track Courts would lie directly before the High Court.
-
The general right of appeal under Section 12B does not extend to interlocutory orders of a Special Fast-Track Court, except for an order granting or refusing bail, which may specifically be appealed to the High Court.
-
Such appeals are proposed to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court.
-
The Bill envisages disposal of appeals, as far as possible, within three months from admission.
-
An appeal against an order granting or refusing bail by a Special Fast-Track Court would also lie to the High Court.
-
Appeals must ordinarily be filed within thirty days, although delays may be condoned up to ninety days on sufficient cause being shown.
