Beyond Paper Leaks: Rebuilding Trust in India’s Examination System

Authored By: Aradhana Patel

Iswar Saran Degree College, University of Allahabad

Abstract

India is currently grappling with a serious paper leak problem that challenges the credibility of its education and recruitment system. It not only undermines the merit system but also imposes financial, emotional and academic burdens on students. This article examines the history of examination fraud in India and the development of State and Central legislation on fraud in public examinations. It also examines key provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and its 2026 Amendment, and analyses the lessons emerging from the NEET-UG and UGC-NET controversies of 2024. It then offers a comparative analysis of the United Kingdom and South Korean models of public examination. The article argues that rebuilding public trust is more important than imposing stringent punishment. It concludes with suggestions for improving the public examination system: secure examination procedures, technological safeguards, remedies for students, and uniform security standards for Central and State examinations.

Keywords: Examination Fraud; Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024; Examination Integrity; 2026 Amendment; NEET-UG and UGC-NET Controversies.

1. Introduction

Imagine a student who spends years preparing for an examination, sacrificing his or her social life, spending money on coaching and books, and carrying the expectations of the family, only to discover that someone else had access to the paper before he or she did. That is why an examination leak is not merely an administrative failure. It undermines the principle of merit by benefiting candidates who may not have earned their position and disadvantaging those who worked hard. This became evident in 2024, when the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) and the University Grants Commission-National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET) faced allegations of question paper leaks. The allegations resulted in widespread public protest, political debate and a series of legal challenges before the Supreme Court.²

Parliament formally addressed the problem of examination leakage in 2024 by passing the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.³ This was a significant development because, for the first time, India had a central criminal law specifically focused on criminalising unfair practices in public examinations. However, two years later, another serious NEET paper leak controversy in 2026 led Parliament to revisit and amend the same law.⁴

This raises an important question: how effective is the 2024 Act in practice? This article examines India’s history of paper leaks, explains the major provisions of the 2024 Act, assesses its implementation and analyses the changes introduced by the 2026 Amendment.

2. Examination Fraud in India: From Isolated Leaks to Organised Manipulation

The problem of paper leaks did not begin with the controversies of 2024; it has troubled Indian examinations for decades. Bihar was the first State to act against it, passing a law in 1981 against practices such as impersonation, paper leaks and mass copying. Maharashtra adopted similar legislation in 1982.⁵ Andhra Pradesh enacted its own Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices) Act in 1997, and Uttar Pradesh enacted similar legislation in 1998.⁶ However, these measures could not prevent large-scale scandals such as the Vyapam scam (Madhya Pradesh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal), in which recruitment and admission eligibility were manipulated through bribery and organised malpractice. This showed that legal provisions alone were not enough to prevent the organised manipulation of examinations.⁷

The problem did not disappear with time. The 1997 IIT-JEE paper leak was one of the first examination scandals to gain widespread national attention, and, nearly three decades later, the case has reportedly remained at the witness examination stage in a lower court.⁸ The 2018 Central Board of Secondary Education paper leak added another dimension: question papers for Classes 10 and 12 were reportedly being sold for thousands of rupees before the examination.⁹ This showed that examination fraud was not limited to competitive examinations but could also affect school examinations. Therefore, it can be said that examination fraud has evolved from individual malpractice into organised networks involving leaks, impersonation, technological manipulation and commercialisation.

These incidents highlighted the limitations of India’s fragmented legal approach. India has several State laws, but it lacked a dedicated, uniform Central legislation covering unfair practices in examinations conducted by Union authorities and their agencies.¹⁰ To address this gap, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill was introduced in February 2024.¹¹ However, India’s history of paper leaks shows that rebuilding trust is much more important than penalising offenders. Examination integrity ultimately depends on prevention, effective enforcement, institutional accountability and strong security mechanisms.

3. The 2024 Act: India’s Shift from Administrative Failure to Criminal Accountability

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 came into force on 21 June 2024, just before the NEET and UGC-NET controversies.¹² The Act applies to examinations conducted by certain “public examination authorities”, which include bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission, the Staff Selection Commission, the Railway Recruitment Boards, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and the National Testing Agency, along with any other authority notified by the Central Government. It also extends the same onus to the private “service providers” hired to conduct examinations.¹³ The names of these authorities are given in the Schedule to the Act, and the Central Government is empowered to add to them by notification.¹⁴

The importance of the Act lies not merely in creating offences but in expanding the scope of accountability. Section 3 defines “unfair means” broadly to cover question paper or answer key leaks, unauthorised access to or possession of a paper or OMR sheet, tampering with answer sheets or computer systems, impersonation, and even the creation of fake websites or fake admit cards for monetary gain.¹⁵ Section 4 makes it an offence to conspire and collude to facilitate such unfair means, and Section 5 makes it an offence to enter an examination centre with intent to disrupt the examination and prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of papers.¹⁶

A modern examination is rarely confined to an individual; it involves several actors at different stages. Recognising this, the Act also places responsibility on service providers and their personnel. Under Section 6, any service provider is required to report unfair means or suspected offences to the police and to the examination authorities. However, where the service provider itself is the offender, the public examination authority must report the matter to the concerned police authorities.¹⁷ Section 7 prohibits a service provider from shifting an examination centre to any other premises without the written approval of the examination authority. Section 8 imposes liability on any person, including staff of a service provider, who assists a candidate without authorisation or fails to report an offence. It also extends liability to directors and senior managers where the offence is shown to have been committed with their consent or connivance.¹⁸ Thus, the Act rests on the principle that institutional negligence or complicity cannot be separated from examination integrity.

Section 9 makes every offence under the Act cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, allows arrest without a warrant, and prohibits private settlement between the parties.¹⁹ Originally, Section 10 prescribed imprisonment of three to five years and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees for ordinary unfair means. Section 11 provided stronger punishment for organised examination crime, committed by a group or by an examination body acting in collusion: imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine that could run into crores of rupees, along with debarment of a guilty service provider from conducting examinations. These punishment provisions were later amended in 2026.²⁰ Finally, Section 19 amends the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 to include offences under this Act in the schedule of offences that may be dealt with under that Ordinance for the attachment of property.²¹

However, punishment alone cannot rebuild public trust. The Act is significant for ensuring accountability, but its real effectiveness depends on whether it addresses the vulnerabilities in question paper preparation, storage, transportation and digital systems.

4. The Student as the Forgotten Stakeholder: Who Bears the Cost of an Examination Failure?

In every public examination, thousands of students invest their time, energy and money in the hope of a better future. They are the ones who suffer from paper leaks, even though they may have had nothing to do with the malpractice. The cancellation of an examination wastes months of preparation and forces students to go through the same stressful process again. For financially weaker families, it may be very difficult to arrange the additional expenses of examination fees, travel, accommodation and coaching.

Therefore, the government and examination bodies need to adopt a student-centric approach alongside strict action against examination malpractice. Timely updates about cancellation and investigation, an effective grievance mechanism and appropriate relief for affected students may reduce their hardship.

Ultimately, examination integrity is not only about keeping question papers secure; it is about protecting merit, equal opportunity and the confidence of students in the system.

5. NEET-UG and UGC-NET: What Do These Controversies Teach Us?

The new law had barely come into force when two major examinations tested its effectiveness. The first major controversy involved NEET-UG 2024, held on 5 May for over 23 lakh aspiring doctors. The results came under suspicion after an unusually large number of students obtained perfect scores. This led to multiple petitions before the Supreme Court, including one filed by Vanshika Yadav, which challenged the results as evidence of a compromised examination.²² In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, the Court accepted that the NEET-UG 2024 paper had indeed leaked at Patna in Bihar and Hazaribagh in Jharkhand, and that the Central Bureau of Investigation had identified roughly 155 students who appeared to be direct beneficiaries of that fraud.²³ However, the Court refused to order a fresh examination for all 23 lakh candidates because there was insufficient evidence that the leak was systemic.²⁴

A second crisis followed within days. The UGC-NET examination of 18 June 2024, held for over nine lakh candidates aspiring to become assistant professors and junior research fellows, was cancelled the very next day after the Ministry of Education received intelligence that the paper was being sold on the dark web and on Telegram.²⁵ The CBI later found that the material circulating online was a fabricated screenshot rather than a genuine leaked paper.²⁶ Together, both episodes showed an uncomfortable truth: a brand-new central law was being tested almost immediately, before the enforcement system had fully developed.

6. The Missing Layer: Prevention Before Punishment

Despite the stringent punishments provided under the 2024 Act, it has certain limitations.

6.1. Punishment over prevention: The Act primarily focuses on punishing the offender while ignoring vulnerabilities in question paper preparation, printing, transportation, storage and distribution.

6.2. Implementation gap: The effectiveness of the Act depends upon prompt investigation and conviction. Delay may weaken its deterrent effect.

6.3. Jurisdictional limitations: The 2024 Act mainly applies to Central Government examinations. The 2024 JSSC CGL paper leak, followed by fresh allegations in 2026, showed a key limitation of the Act.²⁷ State examinations fall outside its scope and depend on State laws for protection.

6.4. Students’ hardship: Cancellation and re-examination can cause significant loss of time and money and psychological trauma to students. The 2024 Act does not provide a comprehensive compensation mechanism.

6.5. Technological vulnerabilities: The significant increase in the digitisation of examinations creates new risks such as hacking and data breaches, which require strong cybersecurity measures alongside the Act.

7. Course Correction: The 2026 Amendment

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, which was enacted as Act 10 of 2026, made several categories of change.²⁸ First, it increases the punishment under Section 10: where the earlier penalty was three to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees, it is now imprisonment of five to ten years and a fine of up to fifty lakh rupees for general offences. A guilty service provider’s fine has risen from one crore to five crore rupees, and its debarment period has been extended from four to eight years.²⁹

Second, the punishment for organised crime under Section 11 was increased to a minimum of seven years’ imprisonment, extendable to ten, with a minimum fine of ten crore rupees, along with the attachment and forfeiture of property.³⁰

Third, the 2026 Amendment inserted Sections 12A and 12B, which designate a Court of Session in every State and Union Territory as a Special Fast-Track Court for offences under the Act. Investigations must be completed within sixty days of the First Information Report, and trials must conclude within three months of the chargesheet. Where these timelines are not met, the reasons must be recorded in writing. Appeals against the orders of these courts now lie to a two-judge Bench of the High Court within thirty days.³¹ In fulfilment of this mandate, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court appointed a Special Judge for the capital’s designated fast-track court within days of the Amendment coming into force on 31 July 2026.³²

Increasing punishment is a significant step, but it cannot by itself prevent examination leaks. Punishment comes into play after the paper has leaked, whereas leaks can be prevented by maintaining stronger security at every stage, from preparing and printing the question paper to its transportation and storage. Fast-track courts may speed up justice, but they cannot remove the weaknesses of the examination system itself. Therefore, the effectiveness of the Amendment will depend on a combination of strict enforcement, early detection and strong preventive measures.

8. Comparative Perspective: What Can India Learn from Other Countries?

India’s 2024 Act is a significant framework for dealing with unfair means in public examinations. India’s system can become more efficient by learning from international models.

8.1. United Kingdom: The UK mainly uses a regulatory model. The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) requires examination bodies to take reasonable steps to prevent malpractice and to maintain the confidentiality of examination material. The UK model also gives importance to the safe handling and storage of question papers.

8.2. South Korea: South Korea is a significant example of how a country can combine criminal punishment with preventive examination security. Under the Higher Education Act, leaking or distributing examination questions before authorisation can attract imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of up to 50 million Korean won.

Therefore, India can build a robust public examination system by combining strong criminal punishment, preventive security and strict confidentiality obligations.

9. Way Forward: From Paper Leak Control to Examination Integrity

The paper leak problem cannot be solved by punishment alone. The 2024 Act³³ is indeed a significant step, but India needs to focus more on preventing paper leaks than on merely punishing offenders.

9.1. Strong examination security: Question papers should be secured at every stage, from setting and printing to transportation, storage and distribution. Technologies such as encryption, digital tracking and limited access will be helpful.

9.2. Fixing accountability: Examination authorities and private service providers must be held responsible for negligence or security breaches. Innocent students should also receive timely remedies if examinations are cancelled.

9.3. Uniform standards for all examinations: There should be common minimum security standards for both Central and State examinations.

9.4. Speedy justice: Prescribing a time frame for investigation and prosecution will be of little use unless it is properly implemented.

9.5. Focusing on prevention: India should focus on preventing malpractice in examinations rather than only punishing offenders.

10. Conclusion

An examination is supposed to be a fair opportunity in which a student’s hard work determines the result, but this basic expectation is disturbed when a paper is leaked. The 2024 Act³⁴ is a significant step in dealing with examination fraud, as it is the central legislation that punishes examination-related offences. The 2026 Amendment³⁵ strengthened the framework by introducing stringent punishment and speedy trials. However, punishment alone cannot stop paper leaks. Greater attention must be given to preventing them through better security, limited access, technological safeguards and the accountability of examination authorities and service providers. Students affected by cancellation and re-examination should also receive timely updates and suitable relief. Therefore, India needs to develop an examination system in which students do not have to worry about whether their result reflects their ability or someone else’s unfair advantage. Restoring that confidence is the real test of examination reform.

Footnote(S):

¹ Student, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), Iswar Saran Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj.

² Press Trust of India, NEET UG 2024: Plea in Supreme Court Seeks Fresh Exam over Paper Leak Allegations, Careers360 (June 3, 2024), https://news.careers360.com/neet-ug-2024-plea-in-supreme-court-seeks-fresh-exam-over-paper-leak-allegations (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

³ Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (Act 1 of 2024) (India), Statement of Objects and Reasons para. 2, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/20100/1/A2024-01.pdf (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

⁴ Anandita Kulhar, Can the New Anti-Paper Leak Law Restore Faith in India’s Public Examinations?, ThePrint (Aug. 6, 2026), https://theprint.in/campus-voice/can-the-new-anti-paper-leak-law-restore-faith-in-indias-public-examinations/3007385/ (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

⁵ India’s Paper Leak Laws Have a Long History. So Do Tardy Probes & Indifferent Prosecution, ThePrint, https://theprint.in/opinion/indias-paper-leak-laws-have-a-long-history-so-do-tardy-probes-indifferent-prosecution/3010984/ (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

⁶ Press Trust of India, supra note 2.

⁷ What Was the Vyapam Scam? 10 Must Know Facts, Zee News (June 11, 2023), https://zeenews.india.com/india/what-was-vyapam-scam-10-must-know-facts-2620421.html (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

⁸ Repeat Offenders, Loopholes in Law – Inside India’s Multi-Crore Paper Leak Industry, ThePrint, https://theprint.in/india/repeat-offenders-loopholes-in-law-inside-indias-multi-crore-paper-leak-industry/2159559/ (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

⁹ Chauhan, CBSE Paper Leak 2018: Question Papers Sold for Rs 16,000 a Night Before Exam, Claim Students, India.com (Mar. 30, 2018), https://www.india.com/education/cbse-paper-leak-2018-question-papers-sold-for-rs-16000-a-night-before-exam-claim-students-2971564/ (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

¹⁰ Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, supra note 3.

¹¹ Press Information Bureau, Lok Sabha Passes ‘The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024’ (Feb. 6, 2024), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2003211&reg=48&lang=2 (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

¹² Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, supra note 3, s 1(2), read with Notification No. S.O. 2422(E) (June 21, 2024).

¹³ Id. s 2(k), (l), (n).

¹⁴ Id. Sched.

¹⁵ Id. s 3.

¹⁶ Id. s 4, 5.

¹⁷ Id. s 6.

¹⁸ Id. ss. 7-8.

¹⁹ Id. s 9.

²⁰ Id. ss 10,11, as they stood prior to the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026 (Act 10 of 2026).

²¹ Id. s 19, read with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, sched.

²² Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 568.

²³ Id.

²⁴ Press Trust of India, SC Refuses to Cancel NEET-UG 2024 Exam on Grounds of Paper Leak and Malpractices, News on Air (July 23, 2024), https://www.newsonair.gov.in/sc-refuses-to-cancel-neet-ug-2024-exam-on-grounds-of-paper-leak-and-malpractices (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

²⁵ Anu Parthiban, UGC NET June 2024 Cancelled, ‘Integrity of Exam May Be Compromised’: Education Ministry, Careers360 (June 19, 2024), https://news.careers360.com/ugc-net-june-2024-cancelled-nta-integrity-of-exam-may-be-compromised-education-ministry (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

²⁶ CBI Files Closure Report in UGC-NET Paper Leak Case, Deccan Herald, https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india%2Fcbi-files-closure-report-in-ugc-net-paper-leak-case-3380116 (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

²⁷ Vikas Kumar Pandit, JSSC CGL 2024 Third Shift Paper Leak; Former CM Demands CBI Investigation, Careers360 (Jan. 29, 2024), https://news.careers360.com/jssc-cgl-2024-third-shift-paper-leak-former-cm-demands-cbi-investigation (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

²⁸ PRS Legislative Research, The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-public-examinations-prevention-of-unfair-means-amendment-bill-2026 (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).

²⁹ Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, supra note 3, s 10(1)–(2), as substituted by the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026 (Act 10 of 2026).

³⁰ Id. s 11.

³¹ The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026 (Act 10 of 2026) ss. 12A-12B.

³² CBI Files Closure Report in UGC-NET Paper Leak Case, supra note 26.

³³ Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, supra note 31.

³⁴ Id.

³⁵ PRS Legislative Research, supra note 28.

Bibliography

Cases

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 568.

Statutes and Treaties

Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (India).
Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (Act 1 of 2024) (India).
Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026 (Act 10 of 2026) (India).

Secondary Sources