Public Examinations Amendment Bill 2026: Tougher penalties face implementation hurdles, backlog challenges
Following widespread protests over Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) UG 2026 paper leak issue and resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union
Following widespread protests over Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) UG 2026 paper leak issue and resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union Government introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 and was passed in Lok Sabha on July 29, 2026. While the Bill was introduced with an intent to curb examination malpractices by facilitating time-bound investigation and speedy trial, there are limitations in the the newly proposed Amendment Bill when it comes to timely closure of investigation and a likely pile up of backlog of cases as observed in other similarly enacted laws. The newly proposed Bill increases quantum of penalty in case of organised crime networks, from a fine of earlier ₹1 crore in previous anti-cheating law passed in 2024 to up to ₹10 crore in the current Bill. The Bill has enhanced the period of debarment of service providers engaging in unfair means from four years to eight years and empowers Central government to constitute a special task force to investigate offences. The Bill also states that investigation of an offence must be completed within two months. However, there are no further provisions stated in the Bill if investigation timeline is not met. “This is different from other laws. For instance, The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 requires reasons to be recorded in writing for extending time period for preliminary inquiry and investigation,” an analysis by PRS Legislative Research states.
“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.” The Bill requires that trial must be completed within three months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. “This may contradict a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court in 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 trials or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time,” the PRS analysis further states. The new Bill provides for designating a Court of Session by each State and Union Territory as a Special Fast Track Court for speedy adjudication. Similarly, Fast Track Courts have been set up in case of other laws too. For example, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) also provides for designation of a Court of Session as a Special Court, for each district. A centrally scheme to this effect was launched in October 2019, including exclusive courts for POCSO cases. The major challenge in operation of Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) is the pendency of cases, apart from the fact that the average time taken in disposing of the cases widely varies between different States.
The BriefWire