A look at the new law brought in to check cheating in exams

It also introduced measures such as the establishment of an independent examination regulatory body, stricter penalties for offenders, and the use of technology to enhance the security of examination processes.

While these initiatives were lauded, the extent to which they have been successful in curbing examination malpractices remains a subject of ongoing debate.

The newly proposed Public Examinations Bill, 2024, seeks to address the issue of examination integrity at the national level. The Bill proposes the creation of a centralised examination authority, the establishment of a system of mandatory biometric identification for exam candidates, and the imposition of severe penalties for those found guilty of engaging in unfair practices.

Implementation of the Act, 1998

There have been several instances where people have been booked under the provisions of the Act, 1998, however even after the conviction, due to the compoundable, bailable nature of the offence, and the punishment with lesser implications, the Act, 1998 could not have the deterrence effect on the people involved in unfair means, etc.

In Vijay Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2005), an FIR was lodged under Sections 5 and 10 of the 1998 Act following a surprise raid at Seth Baburam Bhartiya Inter College, where papers for copying were found. The High Court observed that the evidence did not constitute a cognizable offence against the accused. The court stated that the allegations, even if accepted fully, did not prima facie establish any offence. Thus, continuing proceedings against the accused would be a misuse of the legal process.

In Shweta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012), the petitioner, a minor at the time of her offence under Sections 3 and 9 of the 1998 Act, was convicted based on a confession to avoid trial. The Allahabad High Court ruled that this single conviction, made before she reached the age of discretion, should not disqualify her from being appointed as a constable. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, emphasizing that a solitary act of using unfair means in an examination does not determine a candidate's future suitability for state service.

In 2022, a court in Muzaffarnagar fined three teachers ₹1,500 each for helping students cheat during board exams in 2001. The teachers, from a government inter-college in Uttar Pradesh, were found guilty of facilitating cheating in the exam. This decision comes as part of the court's effort to uphold academic integrity and accountability in educational institutions. The prolonged legal process underscores the challenges and delays often encountered in the Indian judicial system.

In February 2024, the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable recruitment exam faced a significant scandal when it was discovered that the exam papers were leaked using digital devices. The Special Task Force (STF) of Uttar Pradesh arrested ten individuals, including the main accused Rajeev Nayan Mishra and Ravi Attri, who had orchestrated the leak. The group used sophisticated methods to obtain and distribute the exam papers.

Bill 2024: Increased deterrence and stringency

The Bill 2024 introduces more deterrent and stringent measures compared to the Act, 1998 in several ways. The most significant differences include:

Classification of Offences: Section 9 of The Bill classifies all offences related to examination malpractice as cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable. This means that law enforcement agencies can arrest individuals suspected of these offences without a warrant, and the accused cannot be granted bail easily. Additionally, these offences cannot be settled out of court, ensuring a more rigorous legal process.

Penalties for Individuals: The Bill imposes stricter penalties on individuals involved in examination malpractices, including:

Unfair Means: Section 10(1) of the Bill specifies imprisonment for three to five years and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees.

Organised Crime: Sections 10 (2) and 10 (3) of the Bill specify imprisonment for five to ten years and a fine of not less than one crore rupees. These penalties are significantly higher than those prescribed under the Act, 1998, wherein, Section 9 specified a maximum imprisonment of one year and a fine of five thousand rupees for leaking exam material.

Penalties for Service Providers: The Bill 2024 holds service providers accountable for examination malpractice. They are subject to a fine of up to one crore rupees, proportionate costs of the examination, and a four-year ban on conducting public examinations. This provision adds a layer of responsibility and deterrence absent in the Act, 1998.

Further, as per Section 8 of the Bill, any person associated with a service provider who assists someone unauthorisedly during the examination process is considered to have committed an offence. The Bill also extends responsibility to directors, managers, secretaries, or other officers of a service provider if an offence is committed with their consent or connivance.

However, it also provides a safeguard for such individuals if they can prove they had no knowledge of the offence and exercised due diligence to prevent it.

Targeting Organised Crime: Section 2(h) of the Bill specifically addresses "organised crime" related to examination malpractices, defining it as unlawful activities involving collusion and conspiracy for wrongful gain. This focus on organized entities demonstrates a commitment to dismantling sophisticated networks engaged in these activities, which is not explicitly addressed in the Act, 1998.

Efficacy of acts

While both the Act, 1998 and the Bill have made significant strides in addressing the issue of paper leaks, their overall efficacy has been limited. Effective implementation and enforcement of these laws, along with a multi-pronged approach that includes technological advancements, robust examination management practices, and a focus on ethical conduct, will be crucial in restoring public confidence in the integrity of public examinations.

Several states have their own legislation to address the issue of examination malpractices, which can provide valuable insights and best practices for further strengthening the proposed bill. It is the need to make changes in the existing system and innovate to introduce reforms that can curb the menace of paper leaks and ensure fair and transparent public examinations.

The Act, 1998 presents an opportunity to learn from the past and develop a more comprehensive and effective framework to safeguard the sanctity of public examinations in India. The deterrence effect of the proposed legislation, coupled with a commitment to its proper implementation, can serve as a catalyst for a more ethical and secure examination system.

Sanya Singh is a practising lawyer based out in New Delhi. She pursued a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from NUSRL, Ranchi and holds a keen interest in civil and commercial litigation. The views expressed are personal