Authored By: Rayeesa Fatima
Sultan ul Uloom College of law
Introduction
Paper leaks have evolved into a significant constitutional concern because they directly violate Article 14 of the Constitution by denying citizens equality before the law and equal opportunity. And these leaks gives severe mental trauma to students, and student take their own lives, which represents a failure of the state to ensure the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21. In response to these systemic failures, citizens have exercised their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) for freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms, most notably during the peaceful protests at Jantar Mantar.[1]
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, made unauthorized access and the leakage of exam papers punishable offenses. The legislation imposes heavy penalties, including fines of up to ten lakh rupees and imprisonment from three to five years. A critical analysis raises an important question: if these Laws are so severe, why are offenders not afraid of the law? The occurrence of massive paper leaks in 2026 despite these penalties suggests a failure in deterrence. This prompts the question of whether the subsequent legislative amendments introduced in 2026 can truly resolve these constitutional failures.[2][3]
Competitive examinations matter deeply because they are designed to provide fairness and equal opportunity, serving as a true test of merit. A total of close to twenty lakh candidates appeared for the NEET (UG) 2026 examination.[4] Millions of students place their trust in the system, believing they will receive an equal chance to demonstrate their true merit. However, the data reveals a highly protective and exclusionary reality. The issue is highlighted by the fact that there are only 1,36,939 MBBS seats available across India for the 2026-27 academic year.[5] With over two million people chasing a single dream to secure one of these seats, the lack of a fair chance transforms paper leaks into a massive systemic issue.
Historical Background of Paper Leaks in India
Paper leaks are not a modern phenomenon. Looking back at the history of examination security in India reveals that the recurring nature of paper leaks reveals a deep-seated institutional crisis Over the decades.
Paper leaks Occurring repeatedly across various examinations, documented incidents cover school board examinations, university entrance tests, and government recruitment tests. Over the last ten years alone, 152 exam paper leaks have taken place.[6]
Recent examples highlighting this issue. The 2024 and 2026 NEET-UG paper leaks affected multiple states, leading to a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe and several arrests; however, trials are still pending, and there have been no convictions. Similarly, the 2021 REET in Rajasthan affected sixteen lakh candidates and resulted in the cancellation of the exam after the leak; the trial remains ongoing with no convictions. The 2024 UP Police Constable exam impacted forty-eight lakh aspirants, prompting another cancellation; the investigation is still ongoing without any convictions. Historically, the Vyapam scam in Madhya Pradesh involved a multi-exam recruitment racket linked to over forty mysterious deaths, yet years of trials have yielded very few convictions.[7]
Millions of students invest their time, hope, and futures into preparing for these tests, only to face repeated cancellations, delays, and administrative turmoil. Slow investigations, low conviction rates, and a historical tendency to treat these massive organized crimes as ordinary cheating offenses have allowed entrenched networks to thrive.
Laws alone did not dismantle these networks, which explains why there was enough anger to organize nationwide protests at Jantar Mantar.
From Protest to Parliament: The Jantar Mantar Agitation and the Monsoon Session
The Jantar Mantar protests occurred because the national NEET medical entrance exam paper was leaked. The system failed, allowing exam papers to be leaked to certain students before the test. This unfairness led to student suicides. The intense psychological trauma, shock, and pressure caused by the sudden cancellation and rescheduling of the national exam pushed many vulnerable aspirants to a breaking point. At Jantar Mantar, organized groups, parents, and students demanded the immediate resignation of the Union Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, over systemic failures in India’s national testing system.[8]
Innovator and activist Sonam Wangchuk served as a key face of the protests, staging a highly publicized indefinite 26-day hunger strike alongside student groups like the All India Students’ Association (AISA). The movement was also spearheaded by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), led by its founding president Abhijeet Dipke.[9]
The Monsoon Session of Parliament saw intense debate surrounding the issue. The opposition demanded the resignation of the Union Education Minister, driven by the widespread protests and hunger strikes led by Sonam Wangchuk over the irregularities in national exams. The continuous sit-ins and intense political pressure ultimately forced the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.[10]
Following this, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, was introduced. The Bill proposes to make the law stronger, more effective, and faster. It introduces stricter penalties, encompassing tougher actions against service providers and harsher punishments for individual offenders. By increasing the minimum imprisonment to seven years—extendable up to ten years—and raising the maximum fine up to ten crore rupees for organized exam crime, the Bill sets a much higher bar compared to the 2024 Act. Service providers found involved face a maximum fine of ten crore rupees, and the period they are banned from conducting public examinations would increase from four years to eight years. Furthermore, the punishment for individual offenders under this Bill is five to ten years of imprisonment along with fine of up to fifty lakh rupees.[11][12]
The Bill introduces mechanisms for faster investigations and speedy trials by establishing Special Fast Track Courts. These courts are designed for day-to-day hearings, mandating that the trial should be completed within three months of the charge sheet being filed. The Special Task Forces are required to complete investigations within two months as far as possible. And the timeline to appeal to the High Court is set within thirty days of the judgment, with the High Court expected to endeavor to dispose of appeals within three months.[13][14]
Constitutional Analysis of the Rights to Protest[15]
Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, every citizen of India has the freedom of speech and expression to voice their grievances. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), allowing the state to impose limitations in the interest of public order.
Article 19(1)(b) grants the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. the right to peacefully assemble means citizens can protest, provided they adhere to reasonable restrictions and obtain necessary permissions from authorities. The assembly must have a reasonable purpose, as Article 19(3) permits restrictions in the interest of public safety, decency, morality.
If a protest descends into violence or constitutes an offense, it crosses the boundary of these protections. Consequently, dual public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely without restriction. And Article 19 guarantees a fundamental right, it is not absolute. The Constitution does not give the state absolute power; it grants conditional power. The word “reasonable” acts as a constitutional safeguard, forcing the state to justify every restriction it imposes on Indian citizens, ensuring that protests remain within legal frameworks and without violence.
Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. It acts as a protective shield, ensuring that when the state regulates or restricts protests, it does so fairly, without violating dignity or liberty. Article 21 transforms protest rights from merely being about permission to assemble into a broader guarantee of human dignity and fair treatment during dissent. Even during protests, treatment by the police must respect human dignity; excessive force or custodial violence directly violates Article 21.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded “procedure established by law” to mean procedures that are fair, just, and reasonable, thereby preventing arbitrary state action against protesters.[16]
Police Action and State Accountability
The Constitution of India establishes strict accountability for police action by setting absolute boundaries on state power and providing direct avenues for citizen recourse.
Substantive accountability under Articles 19 and 21 dictates that the police cannot arbitrarily infringe upon personal liberty or the right to peaceful assembly. This constitutional accountability is enforced by placing the burden of proof squarely on the state to demonstrate that any police intervention is a reasonable restriction and strictly adheres to a fair, just, and reasonable legal procedure.
The Constitution operationalizes this accountability through the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 32 and 226. These constitutional courts have the direct authority to review police actions, strike down unconstitutional conduct, and compel the state to pay financial compensation for fundamental rights violations, ensuring the state is financially and legally answerable for the transgressions of its officers.[17]
Judicial scrutiny of state overreach is clearly defined by the Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012). The ruling clarified that the police cannot invoke Section 144 of the CrPC—a law that bans groups from gathering—to stop protests before they even start. The Supreme Court ruled that the police cannot use this law like a magical off-switch for democracy; they can only ban a gathering if there is a real, immediate danger of extreme violence. [18]
If students or activists gather peacefully at Jantar Mantar and the police suddenly declare it an “illegal gathering” just to clear them out, they are breaking the Ramlila rule. In the 2011 incident, the police used tear gas and lathis on sleeping people, which the Supreme Court deemed completely unacceptable, ruling that the police are only allowed to use the absolute minimum amount of force required to keep order.[19]
At Jantar Mantar, if protesters are just shouting or trying to march peacefully, the police cannot legally launch a brutal lathi-charge or use water cannons. Doing so is considered a “State Excess” (the government breaking its own laws), and the Ramlila judgment allows courts to punish the responsible police officers.
Penal accountability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Under Section 148 of the BNSS, police can use only the absolute minimum forces needed to move a crowd, and they cannot use water cannons or lathis as a punishment for protesting. Every single police officer must wear a clearly visible name tag and badge, and they are legally barred from hiding their faces or removing badges to avoid being caught on camera committing brutality. The law that allows police to ban gatherings, Section 163 of the BNSS, is meant only to prevent extreme violence and cannot be used as an excuse to shut down peaceful student marches. Citizen protesters are not criminals. If a peaceful protest breaks a minor rule, Section 223 of the BNS allows the police to legally detain them, but it strictly forbids the police from violently attacking them.[20][21]
Legislative Evaluation
The 2024 Act was enacted to prevent the use of unfair means in public examinations, aiming to bring greater transparency, fairness, and credibility to the system. It established a pan-India framework to deter groups and institutions from indulging in malpractices. And the 2026 Amendment Bill was proposed to introduce stricter penalties, including longer prison terms and higher fines, and to mandate time-bound investigations in order to better address ongoing paper leak issues.[22][23]
While the proposed amendments target protesters’ concerns by enhancing accountability, their ultimate effectiveness will depend on strict implementation and broader structural reforms. Currently, there is a strong deterrent, but it remains reactive, not proactive, as these laws are implemented only after the offense is done. To address this, a High-Level Committee has been formed under the chairmanship of Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys and the architect of Aadhaar, and six other high-level members. This task force’s objective is not just to stop paper leaks but to make the entire examination ecosystem by making it more transparent and reliable through technology and structural reforms.[24]
Critical Analysis
Despite the existing threat of a ten lakh rupee fine and up to five years in prison under the 2024 Act, the heavy penalties did not frighten offenders, and massive leaks still occurred in 2026. This raises the question of whether Fast Track Courts can truly solve this structural problem.[25] While they can certainly solve the issue of delayed justice which is a significant problem. Fast Track Courts are designed to clear cases three times faster than normal courts, but currently, there are 2.5 lakh cases pending in fast track courts alone.[26][27]
The delays are systematic: investigative agencies delay chargesheets, prosecutors are not present, and evidence is not ready. As a result, proceedings are delayed. And these Fast Track Courts are not separate entities; they are the same courts where already overburdened elected judges handle these speedy trials and fast proceedings. In India, there is already a vacancy rate of over 20% + in the judiciary, and the 5.4 crore pending cases. Under these conditions, cases continue to remain stuck in courts.[28]
The ability to successfully stop paper leaks may rely on the technological and structural changes brought forth by the high-level committee under Nandan Nilekani.[29]
The Police accountability fundamentally hinges on balancing state enforcement power with the absolute constitutional protection of civil liberties. True reform demands moving beyond reactive legislation to ensure that systemic transparency and strict judicial oversight are enforced actively on the ground.
Recommendations
To effectively address the examination crisis, several proactive measures must be taken. The state must implement better cybersecurity for all competitive exams and ensure strict, time-bound investigations for any breaches. Clearer protest policing guidelines need to be established and the government must introduce whistle-blower protections, and increase the number of active judges to reduce judicial backlogs, and guarantee fair financial and academic compensation for students affected by sudden exam cancellations.
Conclusion
The 2026 protests represent a fundamental fight for the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While the 2024 Act and the 2026 Amendment constitute strong legal steps. The real solution lies in proactive reforms: oversight, cybersecurity, and strict accountability.
Trust in the system will be rebuilt not in the courts, but in the examination halls, where hard work must remain the only currency.
Reference(S):
[1] Constitution of India Art 14,19&21
[2] The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024
[3] The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill 2026
[4] NTA Declares Result of NEET (UG) 2026
[5] Matrix – Total MBBS Seats in India 2026-27
[6] India Today, ‘Rahul Gandhi claimed that 152 exam paper leaks…’ (Facebook) <https://www.facebook.com/reel/1571803764357641/> accessed 5 August 2026.
[7] India Today [n 6]
[8] The Hindu News coverage on the national NEET exam irregularities and Jantar Mantar protests
[9] The Hindu [n 8 ]
[10] Reuter – Indian Youth Protesters Force Exam Reforms After Education Minister Quits
[11] PIB: Introduction of the 2026 Amendment Bill
[12] The Public [n 3]
[13] Ministry of Education
[14] Priya Jain, ‘Anti Paper Leak Law Passed | Strictest Law in India 2026’ (YouTube, 2 August 2026) https://youtu.be/Hyx5a-P17GY accessed 5 August 2026.
[15] Constitution [n 1]
[16] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)
[17] Constitution Art 32&226 [n1]
[18] Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, Union of India (2012)
[19] Ramlila [n 18]
[20] Bhartiya Nyayik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ss 148,163
[21] Bhartiya Nyayik Sanhita 2023 s 223
[22] The Public [n 2]
[23] The Public [n 3]
[24] Priya [n 14]
[25] India Today [n 6]
[26] Priya [n 14]
[27] India Today [n 6]
[28]Priya [n 14]
[29] Priya [n 14]
