Public Examinations Amendment Act 2026: Tougher penalties face implementation hurdles, backlog issues

Following widespread protests against the UG 2026 National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) paper leak issue and the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union government introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractice) Amendment Bill, 2026 and was passed in the Lok Sabha on 29 July 2026.

While the bill was introduced with the intention of curbing malpractices in investigations by facilitating time-bound investigations and speedy trials, the newly proposed amendment has limitations in terms of timely closure of investigations and likely backlog of cases as observed in other similarly enacted laws.

The newly proposed law increases the penalty for organized crime networks from a fine of ₹1 million in the previous anti-cheating law passed in 2024 to ₹10 million in the current bill.

The bill extended the disqualification period for service providers involved in fraudulent means from four years to eight years and empowers the central government to set up a special task force to investigate the offences.

The bill also states that an investigation into an offense must be completed within two months. However, in the case of non-compliance with the investigation deadline, the draft law does not contain any other provisions.

“This is different from other laws. For example, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 requires the reasons for extension of time for preliminary inquiries and investigations to be recorded in writing,” said an analysis by PRS Legislative Research. “Similarly, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the officer concerned has to explain in writing the delay in completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet within 60 days.”

The bill requires the trial to end within three months of the date of the indictment. “This may conflict with the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that it was neither appropriate, practicable, nor judicially permissible to set or prescribe an outer limit for the conclusion of criminal proceedings. It further ruled that criminal courts are not required to terminate judicial proceedings or criminal proceedings merely because of the lapse of time,” the PRS analysis continues.

The new bill provides that each state and Union territory will designate a Supreme Court as a special speedy adjudication court. Similarly, fast track courts have been set up in case of other laws as well.

For example, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO) also provides for a special court to be designated as a special court for each district. To this end, a centrally sponsored system including exclusive courts for POCSO cases was launched in October 2019.

A major problem in the operation of the Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC) is the interlinkage of cases, despite the fact that the average time required to process cases varies widely from state to state.

As of April 2026, 775 FTSCs were operational, including 398 exclusive POCSO courts. “These courts had a backlog of more than two thousand cases as of 2023,” the analysis further states. According to data tabled in the Rajya Sabha on 23 July 2026, the backlog of cases rose from over 2.02 million to 2.45 million from 2023 to 2025.

Similar to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (which replaced the Penal Code, 1973), it requires investigations in relation to rape and POCSO cases to be completed within two months. Similarly, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires completion of investigation and filing of charges within 60 days. “More than 40% of cases pending investigation in 2024 under these laws were pending for more than six months,” the analysis said.

“In POCSO cases, as of August 2025, the average examination duration in FTSC ranged from 257 days in Andhra Pradesh to 1,717 days in Delhi.”

In an August 2025 parliamentary response, the Department of Law and Justice noted that while the average disposal rate of rape and POCSO cases in ordinary courts is estimated at 3.26 cases per court per month, FTSCs achieve an average rate of 9.51 cases per court per month.

Also reasons for delays in trials, as noted by The Law Commission in the past, may be the absence of some or all of the accused or the non-production of prisoners at trial, a problem exacerbated in cases involving a large number of accused.

There could be insufficient efforts by the police in apprehending and producing absconding accused. Furthermore, there could be frequent adjournments due to the absence of official witnesses, as well as proponents requesting adjournments without sufficient justification.

Lack of effective case management measures by trial judges, such as timelines and ensuring continuity of trial, complacency of judges after reaching the required number of cases per month, and inadequate number of courts and staffing may also affect the speed of trial, the Law Commission noted.

It is also pertinent to note that the Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractice) Act, passed in 2024 after the uproar over the earlier NEET UG paper leak case, has not ensured any conviction under the Act in the last two years.

The passage of an amendment in the Lok Sabha to toughen penalties for curbing malpractice in investigations is well-intentioned, a testament to how the law is being implemented and whether it is helping to plug the leaks in the investigative system.

Published – 29 Jul 2026 18:44 IST