MAINS Current Affairs includes Amendment to the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 & Supreme Court to Frame Guidelines for Police Handling of Public Protests

EDUCATION/GOVERNANCE

1. Amendment to the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

Context: The Union Cabinet has approved amendments to the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, with the objective of strengthening India’s anti-paper leak framework through stricter penalties, higher financial sanctions, statutory fast-track courts, and institutional reforms.

• The amendments seek to restore the credibility of public examinations by ensuring speedy investigation, effective prosecution, and stronger deterrence against organised examination fraud.

Background

• The amendments have been proposed following a series of paper leak incidents, particularly the NEET-UG 2024 controversy, which raised serious concerns regarding the transparency, security and integrity of public examinations in India.
• To address these systemic issues, the Government has strengthened the legal framework while also initiating reforms in the National Testing Agency (NTA) based on the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee.

Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

• The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was enacted to curb paper leaks, organised cheating and unfair practices in public examinations.

Objectives

The Act aims to:

• Prevent paper leaks and examination malpractices.
• Protect the integrity of public examinations.
• Ensure fair opportunities for candidates.
• Punish organised examination fraud.
• Strengthen public confidence in recruitment and entrance examinations.

Coverage

The Act applies to major public examinations conducted by various agencies, including:

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
• National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)
• Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)
• Common University Entrance Test (CUET)
• Other notified public examinations conducted by the Central Government.

Definition of “Unfair Means”

The Act broadly defines “unfair means” to include various forms of examination malpractice, including:

• Leaking question papers or answer keys.
• Assisting candidates through unauthorised communication or providing solutions.
• Tampering with computer systems, digital networks or examination resources.
• Impersonating candidates.
• Conducting fake examinations.
• Issuing fake admit cards or certificates.
• Manipulating documents relating to merit lists, ranks or examination results.

The broad definition enables authorities to address both traditional and technology-enabled examination fraud.

About

• The proposed amendments to the anti-cheating law include steeper jail sentences, higher financial penalties and the setting up of fast-track courtsfor speedy trials.
• Amendments in Penalties:Imprisonment for those involved in organised examination fraud has been hiked from the previous 3–5-year bracket to 5 to 10 years in prison. 
  • Maximum fines for those involved in organised rackets have been hiked up to ₹10 crore.
• Fast Track Courts:The law gives statutory backing to set up dedicated fast-track courts empowered to expedite cases. 
  • Fast-track courtswill be mandated to conclude investigations, dispose of cases, and pronounce judgments within three months. 
  • Fast-track courts have already been notified in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, with the Delhi High Court notifying the establishment of a specialised court on July 23.
• Institutional Rebuild: The Education Ministry has issued advertisements for the appointment of senior professionals at the level of General Manager in the agency to oversee key functions such as its network of centres, operations, information security and vigilance.
  • It would engage 16 young professionals in various units of the NTA through the Pratibha Setu portal of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

• It was passed in 2024 and is aimed atcurbing leaks, malpractices in recruitment examinations like UPSC, SSC etc and entrance tests such as NEET, JEE, and CUET.
• The Act broadly defines “unfair means” to include various malpractices, such as:
  • Leaking question papers or answer keys,
  • Assisting candidates during exams (unauthorized communication, providing solutions),
  • Tampering with computer networks or resources,
  • Impersonating candidates,
  • Conducting fake examinations or issuing fake documents,
  • Tampering with documents for merit lists or ranks.
• Penalties and Punishments:
  • Individuals:
    • Imprisonment ranges from 3 to 10 years depending on the offense’s severity.
    • Fines up to Rs. 1 crore for organized crimes.
  • Service providers:
    • Fines up to Rs. 1 crore for involvement in malpractices.
    • Barring from conducting public examinations for 4 years.
    • Personal liability for directors/management involved.
  • Organized crimes:
    • Harsher penalties, with imprisonment between 5 and 10 years and a minimum fine of Rs. 1 crore
    • The institution involved can face property attachment and forfeiture
  • Investigation: 
    • All offences under the Act are cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.
    • An officer not below the rank Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police will investigate the offences under the Act.
    • The Central Government may transfer the investigation to any Central Investigating Agency.

Radhakrishnan Panel

• Following the NEET-UG 2024 controversy, the Ministry of Education formed a high-level committee headed by former ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan. 

Key Recommendations of Panel for Exam Reforms

• Examinations Conducted:NTA from 2025 should conduct only entrance exams for higher education institutions and not recruitment exams.
• Restructuring of NTA:10 new posts covering administration, digital infrastructure, IT security being created in an effort aimed at an error-free examination process for students. 
• Digi- Exam: On the lines of Digi-Yatra, to make the examination process foolproof, authentication at the stages of application, test, admission.
• Governing Body:It recommended to set up an empowered and accountable governing body with three designated sub-committees to oversee test audit, ethics and transparency, nomination and staff conditions.
• Coordination Committee:It recommends that Coordination Committees at State and District levels may be set up with specified roles and responsibilities.
• Test Centres:The panel also recommended usage of Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) across the country as test centres.
• Secure Question Paper Transportation: This includes the use of secure courier services, sealed by authorized officials and validated by the NTA before dispatch.
  • Containers must be locked, monitored during transit, and handed over at test centers under CCTV surveillance and NTA supervision.
• Online Examinations:On the recommendations of the Panel, the government plans to introduce computer adaptive testing for future entrance exams.

Significance of the Amendments

1. Strengthening Examination Integrity

• The amendments significantly enhance the legal framework to protect the fairness and credibility of public examinations.

2. Stronger Deterrence

• Higher imprisonment terms and increased financial penalties are expected to discourage organised examination mafias and paper leak syndicates.

3. Speedy Justice

• The statutory backing for Fast-Track Courts and mandatory three-month disposal of cases will ensure timely justice and reduce prolonged litigation.

4. Institutional Strengthening

• Reforms in the National Testing Agency will improve governance, operational efficiency, information security and examination management.

5. Technology-Driven Reforms

• Digital authentication, secure logistics and computer adaptive testing will minimise opportunities for malpractice and strengthen examination security.

Challenges

• Increasing sophistication of organised examination fraud networks.
• Cybersecurity risks in digital examination systems.
• Requirement for adequate judicial infrastructure to operationalise Fast-Track Courts.
• Need for effective coordination among Central agencies, States and examination authorities.
• Balancing strict enforcement with the rights of genuine candidates.

Way Forward

• The success of the amended Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 will depend on its effective implementation through robust institutional mechanisms and technology-driven reforms. Dedicated Fast-Track Courts should be adequately staffed and equipped to ensure timely investigations and disposal of cases while upholding the principles of natural justice.
• The National Testing Agency (NTA) should be transformed into a technologically advanced and professionally managed organisation with strong cybersecurity systems, regular security audits and transparent governance. The recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee, including Digi-Exam, computer adaptive testing, secure transportation of question papers and institutional restructuring, should be implemented in a phased and time-bound manner.
• Greater coordination among the Ministry of Education, law enforcement agencies, State governments and technology partners is essential to eliminate organised examination fraud. Continuous monitoring, adoption of advanced digital technologies and strict enforcement of legal provisions will help restore public confidence in India’s examination system.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments to the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 represent a significant step towards protecting the integrity, transparency and credibility of India’s public examination system. By introducing stricter penalties, statutory Fast-Track Courts, institutional reforms and technology-driven safeguards, the Government aims to effectively combat paper leaks and organised examination fraud.

However, ensuring fair and merit-based examinations requires not only strong legal provisions but also efficient institutions, secure technology, transparent governance and continuous vigilance. A comprehensive reform agenda will be crucial to preserving the trust of millions of students and safeguarding the credibility of India’s education and recruitment systems.

POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

2. Supreme Court to Frame Guidelines for Police Handling of Public Protests

Context: The Supreme Court of India has decided to formulate pan-India guidelines governing the police handling of public protests, while reaffirming that peaceful protest is a constitutional right and simultaneously recognising the need to protect the lives and safety of law enforcement personnel.

The proposed guidelines seek to strike a balance between the fundamental right to peaceful dissent and the State’s responsibility to maintain public order and security.

Background

The Supreme Court’s decision arose from petitions alleging police excesses during the nationwide student protests following the NEET examination paper leak.

The petitioners sought:

• Uniform national guidelines regulating police response during protests.
• Safeguards against arbitrary or excessive use of force.
• Protection of citizens’ constitutional rights while ensuring effective law enforcement.

The Court observed that while peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy, demonstrations must remain peaceful and should neither violate the rights of others nor threaten public order or public safety.

Constitutional Basis of the Right to Protest

• The Constitution does not explicitly mention a “right to protest”; however, it is derived from several Fundamental Rights:
  • Article 19(1)(a):Freedom of speech and expression.
  • Article 19(1)(b):Right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
  • Article 19(1)(c): Right to form associations or unions.
• However these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under:
  • Article 19(2):Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency, morality, etc.
  • Article 19(3):Restrictions on peaceful assembly in the interest of public order and sovereignty.

Challenges in Tackling Public Unrest

• Distinguishing peaceful protestorsfrom violent or anti-social forces that infiltrate protests.
• Maintaining public order while not compromising on fundamental freedoms, especially during big demonstrations.
• Handling misinformation and rumourscirculating on social media, which can quickly increase emotions.
• Avoid disruptionto vital public services, transport infrastructure and economic activity during extended demonstrations.
• Ensuring the safety and lives of both demonstrators and police in hazardous situations.
• Limited availability of current crowd-control tools, including body cameras, surveillance systems and non-lethal technologies;
• Lack of staff and lack specialist training are among the capacity constraints of police units.

Important Supreme Court Judgments

1. Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012)

The Supreme Court held that:

• Peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right.
• The right to sleep forms part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
• Midnight police action against peacefully sleeping protestors was unconstitutional and illegal.

The judgment emphasised that State action must remain fair, reasonable and proportionate.

2. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018)

The Court recognised that the right to peaceful protest flows from:

• Article 19(1)(a); and
• Article 19(1)(b).

It further held that restrictions on public assemblies must satisfy the constitutional tests of:

• Reasonableness;
• Necessity;

3. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020)

In the Shaheen Bagh case, the Supreme Court ruled that:

• Public roads and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely for protests.
• The right to protest must be balanced against the rights of commuters and the general public.

The judgment emphasised that constitutional rights must coexist harmoniously.

4. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

The Court laid down detailed safeguards against:

• Arbitrary arrest;
• Illegal detention;
• Custodial violence.

It reaffirmed that police powers must always be exercised in accordance with:

• Rule of Law;
• Article 21 of the Constitution.

5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)

The Supreme Court directed comprehensive police reforms, including:

• Operational autonomy for the police;
• Establishment of Police Complaints Authorities;
• Merit-based appointments;
• Fixed tenure for senior police officers;
• Separation of investigation from law and order functions.

The judgment continues to guide police reforms in India.

Significance of the Proposed Guidelines

1. Uniform National Standards

• Pan-India Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will promote consistency in police responses during public protests.

2. Protection of Constitutional Rights

• The guidelines will strengthen the protection of citizens’ rights to peaceful assembly and free expression while ensuring compliance with constitutional limitations.

3. Greater Police Accountability

• Clearly defined procedures will reduce arbitrary use of force and enhance transparency in crowd-control operations.

4. Improved Public Trust

• Transparent and rights-based policing can strengthen public confidence in law enforcement institutions.

5. Better Crowd Management

• Modern crowd-control strategies and non-violent policing techniques can reduce the risk of injuries, violence and property damage.

Challenges in Implementation

• Wide variation in policing practices across States.
• Inadequate implementation of earlier police reform directives.
• Resource constraints in modernising police forces.
• Limited availability of non-lethal crowd-control equipment.
• Balancing civil liberties with public safety during rapidly evolving situations.

Way Forward

• The Supreme Court’s proposed guidelines should be translated into uniform Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) applicable across all States to ensure consistency in police responses during peaceful demonstrations. Crowd-control measures must be guided by the constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality and minimum use of force, ensuring that law enforcement actions remain lawful, accountable and respectful of fundamental rights.
• The implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) should be strengthened to improve police autonomy, professionalism and accountability. Modern policing should increasingly rely on technology-enabled tools such as body-worn cameras, drones, CCTV surveillance and digital evidence management systems to enhance transparency and reduce allegations of excessive force.
• Capacity building of police personnel is equally important. Regular training in human rights, negotiation, mediation, conflict de-escalation, crowd psychology and community policing should become an integral part of police reforms. Such measures will help create a policing system that effectively safeguards both constitutional freedoms and public order.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s initiative to frame pan-India guidelines on police handling of public protests marks an important step towards harmonising democratic freedoms with public order. While the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to peaceful protest, this right must be exercised responsibly without infringing upon the rights of others or endangering public safety.

A balanced framework based on constitutional values, judicial precedents, human rights principles and professional policing standards can strengthen democratic governance, protect civil liberties and promote greater trust between citizens and law enforcement agencies.

Download Pdf | Study Material | Downloads | Daily Quiz  | FREE Youtube Videos