Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Centre Most Commendably Notifies Law To Tackle Unfair Practices And Punish Paper Leaks In Public Exams

Posted in: Civil Laws
Mon, Jun 24, 24, 16:34, 5 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9472
Let me first and foremost begin with a disclaimer: I am not an aspirant of any competitive exam

Let me first and foremost begin with a disclaimer: I am not an aspirant of any competitive exam any more now as I have already crossed that stage some years back and am now in full time profession of lawyer. But I have definitely witnessed earlier a couple of years back when I was busy preparing for different exams as to how hard the aspirants have to study day in and day out for different competitive exams and how just a single mark plays a kingmakers role in ensuring the selection or rejection in any particular exam and how deeply frustrated and cheated the aspirants feel whenever any such news break in media of any particular paper being leaked of any exam and the exam finally getting cancelled leaving the genuine aspirants high and dry! My happiness knows no bounds to learn that finally Centre has decided to go whole hog in taking most decisive action against all those who indulge in unfair practices in exams and who are responsible for paper leaks.

It is certainly most refreshing, most rejuvenating and most reassuring that finally we see that the Central government has broken its prolonged silence on creating a strong legislation to tackle unfair practices in exams and has ultimately notified a law to tackle most firmly the various unfair practices and so also questions paper leaks that keep taking place in different public exams. It must be noted in this regard that the law titled the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 has come into effect from June 21 and it aims to prevent, prohibit and punish unfair means in public examinations. It must be also noted here that the Act covers several unfair activities in public exams such as leaking question papers, tampering with answer sheets, manipulating seating arrangements, creating fake websites to cheat for monetary gain and conducting fake exams.

To recapitulate, we witnessed how the Bill proposing this historic law was first introduced in the Lok Sabha on February 5 before being passed ultimately on the next day that is on February 6. It is worth noting that on February 9, we witnessed how even the Rajya Sabha passed this Bill as well. In addition, we then witnessed how it received the Presidential assent on February 12, 2024 and then was finally notified on June 21, 2024 by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.

It definitely cannot be just glossed over that the notification of this new law comes at a most opportune time amid nationwide huge controversy that has generated over serious malpractices that have been alleged in the conduct of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for undergraduate medical college admissions. It would be also worthwhile to note that the newly notified Act under Section 9 of this new Act makes all the offences cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. It is certainly also worth noting as pointed out in Section 12 of this new Act that all these offences will be investigated by senior police officials. It is stated in Section 12 that:

  1. An officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police shall investigate any offence under this Act.
  2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government shall have the powers to refer the investigation to any Central Investigating Agency.

We need to definitely note here that the new law enjoins that those who use unfair means in public exams could be imprisoned for a minimum of 3 years to a maximum of 5 years to curb cheating and could also be subject to a fine of upto Rs 10 lakhs. It is also stipulated that those who indulge in organized crimes of cheating will face five to 10 years of imprisonment and so also a minimum fine of Rs 1 crore. The BJP-led NDA government while expressing its optimism about the utility of this new law said clearly that the Act will bring greater transparency, fairness and credibility as it is the first federal legislation to prevent malpractices in examinations.

It would be in the fitness of things to mention what all comes under unfair means as spelt out in Section 3 of this Act. Section 3 states that:
The unfair means relating to the conduct of a public examination shall include any act or omission done or caused to be done by any person or group of persons or institutions, and include but not be restricted to, any of the following acts for monetary or wrongful gain –

 

  1. leakage of question paper or answer key or part thereof;
  2. participating in collusion with others to effect leakage of question paper or answer key;
  3. accessing or taking possession of question paper or an Optical Mark Recognition response sheet without authority;
  4. providing solution to one or more questions by any unauthorized person during a public examination;
  5. directly or indirectly assisting the candidate in any manner unauthorisedly in the public examination;
  6. tampering with answer sheets including Optical Mark Recognition response sheets;
  7. altering the assessment except to correct a bona fide error without any authority;
  8. willful violation of norms or standards set up by the Central Government for conduct of a public examination on its own or through its agency;
  9. tampering with any document necessary for short-listing of candidates or finalizing the merit or rank of a candidate in a public examination;
  10. deliberate violation of security measures to facilitate unfair means in conduct of a public examination;
  11. tampering with the computer network or a computer resource or a computer system;
  12. manipulation in seating arrangements, allocation of dates and shifts for the candidates to facilitate adopting unfair means in examinations;
  13. threatening the life, liberty or wrongfully restraining persons associated with the public examination authority or the service provider or any authorized agency of the Government; or obstructing the conduct of a public examination;
  14. creation of fake website to cheat or for monetary gain; and
  15. conduct of fake examination, issuance of fake admit cards or offer letters to cheat or for monetary gain.


Most significantly, we must now dwell on the various punishments as encapsulated in Section 10 and Section 11 of this new Act which forms the cornerstone of this new Act. It is stipulated in Section 10 that:

  1. Any person or persons resorting to unfair means and offences under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine up to ten lakh rupees. In case of default of payment of fine, an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed, as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

    Provided that until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is brought into force, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, shall be applicable in place of the said Act.
  2. The service provider shall also be liable to be punished with imposition of a fine up to one crore rupees and proportionate cost of examination shall also be recovered from such service provider and he shall also be barred from being assigned with any responsibility for the conduct of any public examination for a period of four years.
     
  3. Where it is established during the investigation that offence under this Act has been committed with the consent or connivance of any Director, Senior Management or the persons in-charge of the service provider firm, he shall be liable for imprisonment for a term not less than three years but which may extend to ten years and with fine of one crore rupees. In case of default of payment of fine, an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:

    Provided that until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is brought into force, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, shall be applicable in place of the said Act.
     
  4. Nothing contained in this section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under the Act, if he proves, that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence
     

What’s more, it is then laid bare in para 11 about organised crimes that:

  1. If a person or group of persons including the examination authority or service provider or any other institution commits an organised crime, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than five years but which may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be less than one crore rupees. In case of default of payment of fine, an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:

    Provided that until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is brought into force, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, shall be applicable in place of the said Act.
     
  2. If an institution is involved in committing an organised crime, its property shall be subjected to attachment and forfeiture and proportionate cost of examination shall also be recovered from it.

In sum, it is definitely most heartening to note that Centre has not wasted any more time after the outburst over the NEET exams in most commendably notifying the law to tackle unfair practices as discussed hereinabove and also providing for strict punishment for paper leaks in public exams.

There has to be zero tolerance for such crimes and this is what the new law intends to do. A good beginning has definitely been made in this direction to check, curb, combat and crush such crimes completely or at least considerably to a large extent! It is definitely a right step in the right direction and at the right time! All that is needed now is that it is most strictly implemented whenever any case comes to light without sparing any guilty person!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top