The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 27, 2026. The Bill seeks to amend the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The Act aims to prevent unfair means in public examinations conducted by specified public examination authorities. These include: (i) Union Public Service Commission, (ii) Staff Selection Commission, (iii) Railway Recruitment Boards, (iv) Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, (v) National Testing Agency, (vi) Ministries of the central government and their attached offices, and (vii) other authorities notified by the central government.
In May 2026, NEET 2026 was cancelled, and re-conducted in the following month. NEET is the entrance examination for undergraduate medical education programs. The cancellation was following an alleged paper leak. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Bill noted that it aims to strengthen fairness, enhance the credibility of the public examination system, and facilitate time-bound investigation and speedy trial.
Key Features
- Increase in penalties: The Bill increases the quantum of imprisonment and fines for various offences.
Table 1: Penalty under the Act and the Bill
Offence | Act | Bill |
Use of unfair means by a person | Imprisonment between three and five years, and a fine up to Rs 10 lakh | Imprisonment between five and 10 years, and a fine up to Rs 50 lakh |
Unfair means by a service provider | Fine up to one crore rupees | Fine up to five crore rupees |
Persons-in-charge of a service provider involved in unfair means | Imprisonment between three and 10 years, and a fine of one crore rupees | Minimum imprisonment increased to five years, and fine increased to five crore rupees |
Organised crime | Imprisonment between five and 10 years, and fine not less than one crore rupees | Minimum imprisonment increased to seven years, and minimum fine increased to Rs 10 crore |
Source: The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024; PRS.
Debarment of service providers: The Act also debars a service provider engaging in unfair means for four years, from being assigned any responsibility for conduct of any public examination. The Bill enhances the period of debarment to eight years.
Special Task Force for investigation: The Act provides that an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police will investigate an offence under the Act. It also empowers the central government to refer investigation to any central investigating agency. The Bill empowers the central government to constitute a special task force to investigate offences.
Timeline for investigation: The Bill adds that investigation of an offence must be completed within two months.
Special Fast Track Courts: The Bill requires every state and UT to designate a Court of Session as a Special Fast Track Court to try offences under the Act. The Special Fast Track Courts will also try any connected offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or other laws, in the same trial. Every state and UT must also appoint one or more special public prosecutors for each Special Fast Track Court. All pending cases under the Act will stand transferred to Special Fast Track Courts.
Timeline for trial: The Bill adds that trial must be conducted on a day-to-day basis, until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined. The Court may adjourn beyond the following day, if necessary, after recording reasons in writing. Trial must be completed within three months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. Trial in the transferred pending cases must be completed within three months from the date of transfer.
Appeals: The Bill adds that appeals against judgments, sentences, or orders of the Special Fast Track Courts will lie before a bench of two Judges of the High Court. Appeals must be disposed of, as far as possible, within three months from admission. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the order. The High Court may entertain delay for sufficient cause, but no appeal may be entertained after 90 days.
Issues to Consider
Investigation, Adjudication, and Appeal
The Bill seeks to provide for a time-bound process for completing investigation, trial, and appeal. We discuss certain issues with these provisions below.
Mandatory timeline for completing trial may contradict Supreme Court ruling
The Bill requires that trial must be completed within three months from the date of filing of chargesheet. It also requires that the High Court decide an appeal within three months from admission, as far as possible. The Supreme Court (2002) held that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of criminal proceedings. It further held that criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time.5
Conflicting Court rulings on bar on appeal after a specified number of days
The Bill adds that no appeal “shall” be entertained by the High Court after 90 days from the date of judgment, sentence, or order. The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 also has the same provision. The High Courts have taken conflicting views on whether they have powers to allow appeal beyond 90 days. The Bombay High Court (2023) ruled that if the provision were to be held mandatory despite sufficient cause shown by the applicant, it will amount to travesty of justice. It read down “shall” to be “may”, giving discretion to the High Court.7 Similarly, the Delhi High Court (2019) had ruled that if such a bar by Legislature curtails the right to life and liberty, it cannot be construed as mandatory. It held that the law is only directory, and not mandatory. However, the Madras High Court (2024) ruled that the Court does not have discretion in this matter. It held that reading down doctrine cannot be resorted to when the meaning of the provision is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear.9 In February 2025, the Supreme Court directed as an interim measure that appeals under the NIA Act will not be dismissed on the ground that delay cannot be condoned beyond 90 days.
There are no further provisions if investigation timeline is not met
The Bill states that investigation must be completed within two months. However, there are no provisions if the specified timeline is not met. This is different from other laws. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 requires reasons to be recorded in writing for extending time period for preliminary inquiry and investigation. Similarly, under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the concerned officer must explain the delay in completing investigation and filing chargesheet within 60 days, in writing.
Comments